Old thread about T-14, with outdated plans about built a T-14, but, also, with interesting information:
- "Levsha" and "Levsha-M" - experimwnts with ETC cannons
- Work with ETC variant of 2A82 cannon
- "Created new ammunition, "Vakuum-1"...", "new ammunition for 2A82 succesfully tested, in 2013, and "taken for supply" (Rus. "приняты на снабжение")
And other thread:
About rail guns for tanks, and - project "Tachanka-B" - "pilotless" variant of T-14.
Also, about perspectives:
Concept of "electrical" tank, created by NIITransMash, with railgun (muzzle velocity - hypersonic, ammunition - uranium shells), electrical engine (for high speed and low noise), and electrical armour (shells nelt then hit). And, it's a tank on six big wheels.
And... Real experiments with "silent APC":
Heavy APC with hybrid engine, electrical transmission... Early variant of "electrical tank"? And, based on BTR-90 projected Sprut-K 125 mm AT gun (or, light wheeled tank), 152 mm gun, AA system, etc.
Old thread about T-14, with outdated plans about built a T-14
Which were never real plans but one talking head sounded them as wishful thinking and shotload of other talking heads catched them up without taking any context.
proposed option for placing a 155-millimeter gun in the tower” (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, April 27). what the ...Whatever the origins and inspiration underlying Russia’s “tank of the future,” it seems set to face ongoing procurement issues due to spiraling costs and unspecified “technical issues.” or not

nearly nine and half per copy, whoa
Last edited:
152mm, not 155mm. And it was an option since day one, 2A83 (and previously other 152mm cannons) was proposed as main armament for future MBT for decades, and was implemented in T-95.

Article is bad. Both factogical errors and mistranslations from russian (MBT-70 in reverse translation became MVT-70 ect).
I feel that the case for a 152mm turret mounted gun in any tank is yet to be made, imho it is a retrograde step. A robot perhaps but even then, not beneficial. How long do you expect to be able to engage the enemy for without having to rearm the vehicle? How do you intend to do that while in contact and what do you perform the task with? More specialised and probably paletised vehicles, also automated?
A 152 mm cannon and a module with a loading mechanism were made and were tested at the 195 site. Which was then closed. I would not be surprised that in the future a 130 mm intermediate-caliber gun may appear.
Not in russian service. Upgrade from 2A82 to 130mm will be quite miniscule.
130 mm gun... In 1970th created LP-36B smooth-bore and LP-36E rifled-bore guns. Also, in 1970-1971 projected 130 mm automatic gun (rifled?) with caseless cartridges.
About T-14-"robot" - project "Alisa" ("Alice"), based on T-72, 2011:
Data of "Alisa" - range of control to 2 km, speed with automation 10-20 kmph, range of targeting with automation to 3 km.
Quite unexpected:

"Боевая машина семейства «Курганец-25» пройдет государственные испытания осенью 2022 года. Об этом пишет газета «Известия», ссылаясь на сообщение Минобороны РФ.
По словам военного эксперта Виктора Мураховского, государственные испытания занимают довольно много времени.
«В него входят, например, ресурсные испытания, то есть двигатель должен отработать положенное количество моточасов. Ходовая часть должна пройти заданное число километров без замены гусеничных лент, причем по грунтам различного типа», — сообщил он.
Отмечается, что ключевой особенностью линейки машин на базе «Курганца» будет установка комплекса активной защиты «Афганит», предназначенной для борьбы с противотанковыми гранатами и ракетами."
Google translator:
"The Kurganets-25 family combat vehicle will undergo state tests in the fall of 2022. The newspaper Izvestia writes about this, referring to the message of the RF Ministry of Defense.
According to military expert Viktor Murakhovsky, state tests take quite a long time.
“It includes, for example, life tests, that is, the engine must work out the prescribed number of engine hours. The undercarriage must travel a given number of kilometers without replacing the caterpillar tracks, and on various soils,” he said.
It is noted that the key feature of the line of vehicles based on the Kurganets will be the installation of the Afghanit active protection complex, designed to combat anti-tank grenades and missiles."
T-14 seems to have been announced as imminently entering production about once a year since 2015. This time it isn't even consistent with what the defence minister was saying four months ago:

"Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told TASS in March that only “an experimental-industrial” batch of T-14 Armatas, T-15 infantry fighting vehicles, and T-16 armoured recovery vehicles would be delivered in 2022, as opposed to series production vehicles."
It is a completely new system, as complex as any other that has been in development in the Russian mic. All indications is that it will come into full production eventually. Simulators and training of cadets has already started.
The question isn't whether trials have been done. LCS passed trials and made it into service, and still end up looking like a disaster from a external perspective.

I guess the rough association in my head is this:
Throwing advanced technology to gain marginal performance improvements in combat niches not invested much by other powers.
The failure mode would be vehicles that are difficult to maintain and operate with the performance improvement factor being largely irrelevant.

Though it would be hard for external observers to know if this is the case unless shooting happens.
The difference between LCS and Armata that I see is that LCS was a contrived solution looking for a problem that turned out not to exist - Armata simply applies a few innovations to the well-established requirements of a classic MBT. I mean, is its main novelty, the unmanned turret concept, even that revolutionary when viewed through the lens of a country that has been building and operating autoloaded, 3-crew tanks for decades? It's a logical next step if you think about it, and in other respects (e.g. armament & automotive) Armata is fairly conventional - no radical powertrain or monster gun or similar.
One speculation I've seen about the Armata is in the separated crew capsule: this makes perfect sense from a crew projection perspective, however this means the machinery spaces are inaccessible during operations and may not have been designed to be very accessible outside of operations as it trades off with precious protected internal volume.

This means any system unreliability that could have been dealt with by the crew (inspect/maintain/repair) in past generation vehicles now could becomes a huge issue. This makes this tank potentially having the technical difficulty similar to say, a drone ship.
This kind of problem also seems like the category of problems that can not be fully evaluated at the overall design level and could drag out projects to death.

Something like a monster gun is actually simpler as most of the variables can be accounted for at design time.
So the tank has a 152mm proposal with a 30mm anti-aircraft secondary gun proposal, apparently uses a radar since its ATGM is to hit targets from 12kms away like helicopters and I don't think its infrared/laser range finder would accommodate the sprinter's range and I think they still have a new ATGM that would surpass the 3UBK21 Sprinter called the Sokol-V 3UBK25? Bumping up 1,700 to 3,000 m/s stopping speeds with projectiles. Talks of going fully unmanned but I hear that there are projects where they can control tanks with V/R glasses. Think they are pulling a Su-57 on this tank project.

The American portal The National Interest was interested in the publication in the publication "Izvestia" about the Russian tank T-14 "Armata". In particular, it was mentioned that the combat vehicle thanks to the built-in supercapacitors is able to start even at temperatures below -50 degrees. Experts from the United States in this regard assessed the possibility of using the tank on Mars.

They noted that supercapacitors can indeed store a large amount of energy, which can be used both to power all tank systems and to start engines. At the same time, the ambient temperature does not matter much.

On Mars, according to American experts, it can drop to -62, since the thin atmosphere of the Red Planet practically does not hold solar heat. In the polar regions, the air cools to -120 and in such conditions the engines will not start exactly.

The authors also note that starting a motor is one thing, but moving on the surface of the Red Planet is quite another. So, in the atmosphere of Mars there is practically no oxygen, so the Armata engine will constantly "suffocate". In addition, if the Russian Federation suddenly wants to "capture the planet", it will be very difficult for it to deliver tanks to its surface due to the large weight. At the moment, there are no solutions in the world capable of transporting 50-ton cargo to Mars.
What is this garbage and why should I care? A crap Russian article about a crap American article? How meta do we need to go?
What is this garbage and why should I care? A crap Russian article about a crap American article? How meta do we need to go?
I had no idea the tank operates at 50 degrees below from that news piece? I am a little nervous here because I am assuming I am on your shit-list with someone nitpicking, because i think you overlooked users posting blogs that are much worse than this at the Sukhoi LTS thread but whatever I will delete it.
If that's what you found interesting, maybe mention that? "T-14 Armata not usable on Mars" is what I took from it. Which certainly falls into the category of "things that don't need to be said", like "Sukhoi Checkmate can't fly to Jupiter".
I , at a first glance would call bullshit on this one, the industrial source is not a source until it has name and surname and the firm (s)he work on it attached.
Second there is not ANY contradiction between what we know about the current State Trial program schedule and beginning of full rate production in 2024.
Follow me, please: we already know that they would produce enough armata this year to equip two companies and they plan to produce next year the number needed to pass them to two battalions.
So in 2022 they would test company level tactics using tanks consigned this year and in 2023 would do the same for BTG level with vehicles to be consigned the next one.
Once they get the final results they would make the necessary preparations for begin full rate production in the next year, simple as that.
The number of 2300 Armata to be produced in the period 2015-2020 is a clear sign that the defence blog simply doesn't have a clue of how the russian military work: they NEVER, NEVER send out production numbers of an individual item, not even when the development and industrialization process is completely settled but just the total number of an entire CATEGORY of weapons they plan to acquire /deeply modernize in a given interval of time (and this particolar one make no sense at all as the usual duration is 10 years but followed by another at 5 year interval so it would have been 2016-2020 (to be considered as both an addition to the previous ongoing plan and first part of the new one) but following Ukraine crisis it was delayed to 2018-2022 (and the whole one to 2028).
Last years 240 tanks were delivered (all deeply modernized), this years would be 300 (first production batches of new T-90M and T-14 included).
It's a blog.
I also despair whenever I read "an unnamed source said", which is the gist of this article.
It's reached ridiculous proportions.
It's a blog.
I also despair whenever I read "an unnamed source said", which is the gist of this article.
It's reached ridiculous proportions.
Depends on the journalist and the blog.
I completely agree..that was the point I was clumsily trying to make. I should have been clearer, and not used three words.
I must say though my second point remains. Whenever I see those words, or an approximation of them, I tend to not place much credence on whatever follows.
dimension estimation (uploader: 7N39)



Similar threads

Top Bottom