Armata soon to be in service.

[akd]

 

Small sensor next to the radar is probably LWS:

 

 

Yes, probably LWS, but I don't think that element with the black face plate next to it is radar.  These are only present only on T-14 and T-15, but the APS "tubes" are common to Kurganets IFV as well.  What they all have in common are the boxy modules with a small rectangle and square on the face.  These are partially obscured by the turret shell on T-14. 

 

 

I'm fairly certain these are the radar modules (or mock-ups of such modules).  I also don't see why a radar would need a removable plate.  Almost looks more like a safety device as it clearly meant to be removed before operation.

Edited May 4, 2015 by akd

[MikeyD]

The thing about the ugly-ugly Armata turret. Theoretically you could put round after round through it and not knock out the tank - one of the advantages of overhead gun crew-in-hull design. Of course you don't need a catastrophic kill to make it a combat loss. I vaguely recall a Ukrainian 'rebel' once claiming a non-penetrating strike against an Oplot would pop all the circuit breakers on the fancy electronics and it would take several minutes to reset before it could return to combat. I don't know if that's true or not. I recall similar (old) stories about Apache firing its autocannon and popping circuit breakers from the vibration.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Yes, probably LWS, but I don't think that element with the black face plate next to it is radar.  These are only present only on T-14 and T-15, but the APS "tubes" are common to Kurganets IFV as well.  What they all have in common are the boxy modules with a small rectangle and square on the face that can been seen clearly at the hull corners of Kurganets IFV.  These are partially obscured by the turret shell on T-14.  I'm fairly certain these are the radar modules.  I also don't see why a radar would need a removable plate.  Almost looks more like a safety device as it clearly meant to be removed before operation.

 

I guess they are both APS radars, bigger is top-attack capable, smaller is not. T-14 and T-15 have both sets. 4 big ones per each 90 degrees (360 total), looking upwards at ~30-45 degrees. And 2 additional smaller radars that look at the front (1, 2) (additional frontal 180 coverage). Kurganets-25 IFV also has six radars, but they are all small, and not looking upwards. Probably cheaper.

 

Note that T-14 and T-15 are covered only by bigger radars on the rear 180 degrees: 1, 2, 3. No smaller ones.

 

re: removable plate

 

Radiation hazard? Ballistic protection?

Edited May 4, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[akd]

I guess they are both APS radars, bigger is top-attack capable, smaller is not. T-14 and T-15 have both sets. 4 big ones per each 90 degrees (360 total), looking upwards at ~30-45 degrees. And 2 additional smaller radars that look at the front (1, 2) (additional frontal 180 coverage). Kurganets-25 IFV also has six radars, but they are all small, and not looking upwards. Probably cheaper.

 

re: removable plate

 

Radiation hazard? Ballistic safety?

 

Why? No other APS radars, including Russian ones, have such removable "safety" plates.  But yeah, all in all I can't quite add up the various elements.

Edited May 4, 2015 by akd

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Top attack incoming!

 

[akd]

The vertical smoke grenade packs on both are interesting.

 

BTW, no coax MG on T-14?

 

cool pic:

Edited May 4, 2015 by akd

[L0ckAndL0ad]

The vertical smoke grenade packs on both are interesting.

 

BTW, no coax MG on T-14?

 

48 smoke grenades per tank. I guess they want to lag their enemies to win the fight

 

Coax? I thought it is near the gunner's optics, but apparently, no.

[Pablius]

I think that the T-14 turret is missing a couple of Lego pieces...

 

But they look good to me, may the aesthetics balance be shifting?

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I think that the T-14 turret is missing a couple of Lego pieces...

 

But they look good to me, may the aesthetics balance be shifting?

 

Something tells me I won't be able to decide until  able to play with them myself, LOL. Sometimes aesthetics don't go hand in hand with performance. I LOVE how CV90s look. Turned out to be made of paper in CMSF. Had similar experience with BTR-82A, which turned out to be blind as hell, and BMP-3, which should not be used for assaults without total enemy suppression. Otherwise explodes, and takes out everyone around. Not really infantry-friendly feature.

 

Wonder what those new German Puma IFVs are like.

 

Oh, and speaking of Lego. Modularity shows from the top. Accessibility too.

 

Bro:

 

 

Nobro:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/page-21#entry1599182

Edited May 4, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

And a couple more, before I go to sleep.

 

[Stagler]

The lack of visible coax might mean the trunnion on the turret side will allow fitting for 30mm cannon. It seems they have taken the same CITV and co-located AAMG from the T-90MS. Looks good.

Also, ERA on roof and also movable block-type APS dispensers. Looks like allowance for top attack has been made for a change.

 

In our private conversation, Damian pointed out there might be possible ERA on lower glacis plate underside also, another step-change.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/382375/382375_original.jpg

You notice from the sides, where the plates have been attached to the upper turret above the Drozd-type APS dispensers, the actual turret superstructure is a lot smaller than the plates indicate - again, as I said a few weeks ago to Panzer, a lot of inert space.
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/venatta/media/9AvIO_zpsxo8yl9ev.jpg.html




 

Edited May 4, 2015 by Stagler

[Alan8325]

Russia's future won't look like this at all. Not only will it still retain a plethora of support vehicles (more varied than the US, IMHO) that have nothing in common with A/K/B, but unlike the US it will also have to retain a large number of fighting vehicles that have nothing in common with it. Just like when the BMP-3 was introduced. The resulting logistics headaches are proportionally larger than what the US has to suffer AND the Russians don't have the logistics strengths that the US has.

Steve

3d printing technology is quickly reducing the need for infrastructure to produce the parts to maintain a wide variety of equipment. Navy ships are being equipped with direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) printers to make replacement parts. Antique cars can have new replica parts made from scratch instead of using salvage parts. A unique wrench design was "e-mailed" to a printer on the ISS.

I think the big picture indicates cheaper maintenance and logistics for everyone and a wider variety of equipment fielded.

[c3k]

There is a vertical slot to the right of the cannon on the Armata. Perhaps that is for a recessed coax.

 

But, yeah, the more I look, the uglier it gets. When they decided to change their design aesthetics, they went all the way!

 

Lots of grenade launchers. Lots of sensors. The removable plate is interesting. You can see what appear to be retention cables on the top corners. Manually removed as needed? Some sort of aperture which is either classified or needs to be protected?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Nice to see we're still tap dancing around economics and logistics.  Points still stand about the ability of the Russians to afford this stuff in the short term, and the viability of what is increasingly looking like adding more families of vehicles to a military that already has three or four different things to do one mission.

 

Realistically the best way to get past the bloat and redundant systems, and get a better more effective military at this point remains accepting strategic deterrence is sufficient for homeland protection, and right-sizing the Russian forces to better serve their expeditionary/internal security missions that nuclear weapons simply cannot do.  Less military, less money wasted on T-72s, more resources for building fewer, but much more capable forces to do things like invade Georgia or beat up Ukraine (which honestly even with a one for one system upgrade to functional A/K/B tomorrow is about what Russia can realistically swing).  As much as folks bemoan the US drawdown in the 90's, we did not need as many heavy divisions with large scale conventional warfare in central Europe being at that time, no longer a reality.  The cost of keeping an additional four divisions or so worth of armored vehicles up to date is really something that with post 80's defense priorities just was not practical.

 

So if Armata was the consolation prize to a smaller, leaner Russian Army, I'd feel more confident that it'll see mass fielding, but again and again, Russian hardware upgrades have been hamstrung by Russian budgets, and nothing has been done to fix those, so again, skepticism is warranted.

 

Further, I have to wonder if the BMP3 might just be a good model of what'll happen with some of the new vehicles, a troubled R&D, limited procurement, continued teething issues, all the way to the point where when they're starting to work right, they're now facing the M5A2 McMasters, and the Lion 1A7 or whatever.  

 

Re; Yankee imperialist upgrades

 

As pointed out already, the M1, M3 and M2 upgrades actually went along quite quickly, most of the front-line units had whatever was most modern.  M113 based platforms have hung around so long mostly because they were both plentiful, and in roles were the platforms shortfallings were less noticeable.  Same deal with the M88s, if a support vehicle still works fine, and still has years in its expected service life, there's not really a reason to get rid of it.  We're looking at a M113 replacement now because now we're at the point where the M113 part stack has gotten a lot smaller, and most of the vehicles based on the chassis are very old and no longer able to keep up to serviceability rates.

 

Re: Design

 

The real advantage to unmanned turrets is size reduction, and crew protection.  A sabot or other munition striking it will still ruin the inside of the turret pretty well, and if you can find and name some bloated metal superstructures that just exist because yolo on other armored vehicles, I'd be interested to see them.  The turret is as big as it is to contain what it has to, plus the equipment requires to keep it operational.

 

In terms of APS, it really needs to be a guided type APS projectile with those sort of mounts, or the real possibility they're well painted coffee cans/it's a much less comprehensive system.  I have to wonder if several of the flat spots/cutouts though are simply mounting locations for equipment not ready/not cleared for observation yet.

 

Dunno.  Will be interesting.  Might not be a trainwreck, but that's not an endorsement of success either.  

[HUSKER2142]

"MSTA-S" on the left , "Сoalition-SV" on the right.

 

 

Author  Predator [RUS]

Edited May 5, 2015 by HUSKER2142

[Battlefront.com]

Also, ERA on roof and also movable block-type APS dispensers. Looks like allowance for top attack has been made for a change.

Something someone might have pointed out before, but it appears that the turrets don't have significant amounts of ERA on them. The Armata's turret, in particular, has none from what I can see. This is not necessarily a bad decision. Cuts down on weight and cost, but likely doesn't adversely effect either crew safety or survivability. If the APS manages to defeat the incoming round, then the vehicle remains combat effective even without the ERA. If it doesn't, then it's likely to be toast anyway if being shot at by certain SABOT and ATGMs.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

They don't build T-72s. They repair and upgrade existing T-72s. BMP-3 numbers? Already discussed in previous posts.

Sorry, I should have said "upgrading" T-72s. So let me repeat... if Russia stopped procuring expensive T-90s because they have something better in the works, then why bother spending the money on upgrading T-72s that have been driving around since before you were a sparkle in your dad's eye (I hope that translates into an equivalent Russian idiom ).

As for the BMP-3, yes we did discuss it. Very few were incorporated into the Russian military. Cost must have been one of the factors for this since, as you point out, factories were able to crank out 2 for export for every 1 for domestic use.

 

Either way, basically, you propose them to downgrade their whole fleet. It is silly, because current logistical mess can be endured. Downgrading combat firepower just for the sake of better logistics? Cannot be endured. They barely do now.

Who said anything about downgrading? I'm advocating Russia build something better than the T-90 that is less expensive than the Armata. I am sure that can be done if "better" is defined as more survivable for the crew, shares common parts with IFVs, etc.

 

Even more. They won't be able to compete with Western tanks at all (and I am not talking about NATO, just other tanks in general). At which point there's no need for such tanks in the first place.

Which is why at the very beginning of this debate I pointed out this very thing and you said they aren't intended to.

It's quite simple. Is Russia designing these vehicles to go toe-to-toe with NATO/Western tanks or not? If not, then I believe the designs are overkill for Russia's needs. If they are designed to go toe-to-toe with Western vehicles, I don't think it's going to work out because I doubt Russia can afford to develop such a tank, not to mention field it in numbers that are significant enough to matter. So why spend money on a risky, expensive, prolonged R&D process to develop something that is overkill against neighbors but still not sufficient to deal with NATO/Western tanks?

 

So your proposition is bad.

Not surprisingly, I disagree

 

 

Doesn't mean they should not move in proper direction. Or build cheap stuff just because they can build it in numbers.

Here we agree, mostly. I do think Russia *must* develop a new set of vehicles. I also think it is smart to have as much parts overlap between them as possible. And for sure making cheap crap that still puts crews at unnecessary risk is a really stupid waste of money. But I also think it isn't smart to engage in a 20 year long program that is unlikely to be funded to the extent necessary to make a difference on the battlefield.

Note that I am a big supporter of the US thinking behind the Sherman tank. It had decent combat capabilities, excellent reliability, and could be produced at an affordable price. They couldn't go toe to toe with many German tanks, but they were "good enough" for most engagements. I'd rather have a company of Shermans than a platoon of Panthers any day of the week.

Steve

[Agiel]

Note that I am a big supporter of the US thinking behind the Sherman tank. It had decent combat capabilities, excellent reliability, and could be produced at an affordable price. They couldn't go toe to toe with many German tanks, but they were "good enough" for most engagements. I'd rather have a company of Shermans than a platoon of Panthers any day of the week.

Steve

 

Just goes to show that the "General's tank" and the "Tanker's tank" are quite often two different things

[Battlefront.com]

3d printing technology is quickly reducing the need for infrastructure to produce the parts to maintain a wide variety of equipment. Navy ships are being equipped with direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) printers to make replacement parts. Antique cars can have new replica parts made from scratch instead of using salvage parts. A unique wrench design was "e-mailed" to a printer on the ISS.

I think the big picture indicates cheaper maintenance and logistics for everyone and a wider variety of equipment fielded.

 

Fair point, but I don't see that being practical for quite some time to come. But you are correct to point out that this should have a positive impact on logistics.

 

Nice to see we're still tap dancing around economics and logistics.

Well, addressing this would be like raining on a parade (haha... I'm SOOOOOO clever ).

Seriously, I do undertand why the issue is being repeatedly ignored or blown off. It's like the ultimate nerd scientist designing the perfect woman and not wanting to discuss the fact that he ever managed to create one in the lab, the chances of him getting to date her are not good

 

Further, I have to wonder if the BMP3 might just be a good model of what'll happen with some of the new vehicles, a troubled R&D, limited procurement, continued teething issues, all the way to the point where when they're starting to work right, they're now facing the M5A2 McMasters, and the Lion 1A7 or whatever.

Yup, but if these things are not designed to go up against NATO/Western vehicle designs then it's not really an issue. Which is why it is so important for Russia to design a vehicle that is intended to beat it's intended foe and nothing more than that.

 

As pointed out already, the M1, M3 and M2 upgrades actually went along quite quickly, most of the front-line units had whatever was most modern.  M113 based platforms have hung around so long mostly because they were both plentiful, and in roles were the platforms shortfallings were less noticeable.  Same deal with the M88s, if a support vehicle still works fine, and still has years in its expected service life, there's not really a reason to get rid of it.  We're looking at a M113 replacement now because now we're at the point where the M113 part stack has gotten a lot smaller, and most of the vehicles based on the chassis are very old and no longer able to keep up to serviceability rates.

Yup, and that raises the interesting point that the NATO/West can only coast for so long with its current inventory and upgrades before it too will have to knuckle down and spend vast amounts of treasure to change things over to a new generation of vehicles. Unfortunately, the NATO/West economies are not presently in good shape for such a change if it were to happen today. Which means the same arguments I'm making about Russia's ability to afford its designs apply to NATO/Western nations as well. Just not today since today it has no need to replace everything.

Dunno.  Will be interesting.  Might not be a trainwreck, but that's not an endorsement of success either.

My prediction...

Russia will take longer and spend more money than it intends to make a family of vehicles that have less than currently advertised. At least one of the proposed family of vehicles will run into some sort of really nasty problem and be more affected than the other two. Once the vehicles are ready for mass production they will be introduced slowly over a fairly long period of time and never obtain fielding rates beyond 30% without major reinvestment in upgrades or replacements.

Which means that in 2025 I would expect Russia to field less than 20% of what it needs to completely replace its legacy hardware. By 2030 it will be around 30%, but those vehicles will be considered "dated" and in need of upgrades.

Note that this is predicated on Russia not significantly changing its force size. If Russia downsizes its military force to something more-or-less "Rapid Reaction Force" size then things will look very different.

Wow. Funny thing just popped into my head. I remember having discussions like this on USENET back in the early 1990s. I remember advocating a smaller, leaner, meaner Russian armed force at the time. I was in my early 20s at the time. Oddly enough 15 years later Russia figured out that was the correct course of action. Amazing how consistently clueless I've been about military matters over the years

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Just goes to show that the "General's tank" and the "Tanker's tank" are quite often two different things

Indeed! When someone gets "in my face" about that they cite all the burned up crews in Shermans and ask if I would have been happy being one of them. My answer is always the same... odds say that if I were a Sherman crew in WW2 ETO I had a better chance of coming out alive than a German crew simply because of the odds. If you're one of 5 tanks you have less a chance of being killed than if you are in 1 of 1 tank.

Steve

[Fenris]

Indeed! When someone gets "in my face" about that they cite all the burned up crews in Shermans and ask if I would have been happy being one of them. My answer is always the same... odds say that if I were a Sherman crew in WW2 ETO I had a better chance of coming out alive than a German crew simply because of the odds. If you're one of 5 tanks you have less a chance of being killed than if you are in 1 of 1 tank.

Steve

 

 

Heresy!!

 

The myth of invincibility tells us otherwise - it's on the history channel and the youtubes!!

 

 

-F

[Kieme(ITA)]

The two grenade launchers on the top of Armata turret.. they seem to be 360° capable aren't they?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

3d printing technology is quickly reducing the need for infrastructure to produce the parts to maintain a wide variety of equipment. Navy ships are being equipped with direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) printers to make replacement parts. Antique cars can have new replica parts made from scratch instead of using salvage parts. A unique wrench design was "e-mailed" to a printer on the ISS.

 

Missed this first go-around

 

The technology just is not ready for field maintenance.  Like if you're forward, the solution to a major problem is usually to replace an entire mechanism and to send it to the rear (like really rear, sometimes out of theater) for repairs, while the replacement part is again, generally an entire assembly.

 

Which is to say, you don't replace the broken shaft in the generator, you replace the generator with a complete generator.  3D printing at the moment can make the shaft...but the sort of time, space, and conditions to tear down the entire generator (not to mention the trained personnel to do so, while mechanics are well trained there's a practical limit to how trained they can be) just do not exist, and simply put the replacement parts for modern AFVs are complete assemblies, not printed wrenches, etc.  Might be handy for making little things like fasteners and the like, so there's certainly a future, but it is a long way from being able to fix tanks in the field.

 

In terms of industrial work, there's still the end assembly of very complex parts that might be 3D printed, but will still require skilled labor or high tech assembly tools.  

 

 

 

Seriously, I do undertand why the issue is being repeatedly ignored or blown off. It's like the ultimate nerd scientist designing the perfect woman and not wanting to discuss the fact that he ever managed to create one in the lab, the chances of him getting to date her are not good 

 

It's like that old cliche about amateurs reading up on tactics, professionals studying logistics.  New weapons and equipment has way more to do with everything but the weapon that people give credit for, and the things that have made Russian procurement problematic simply have not changed since the USSR, and possibly even the Czars (the US isn't any better with fixing its terribly broken procurement, but for the US military at least, money isn't the biggest problem).

 

 

 

Yup, but if these things are not designed to go up against NATO/Western vehicle designs then it's not really an issue. Which is why it is so important for Russia to design a vehicle that is intended to beat it's intended foe and nothing more than that.

 

But here's the thing, if it's not designed to go toe to toe with M1A2s and Leo 2s (and it will almost certainly not be fielded in the sort of numbers to drown a potential enemy in Armatas), how are things going to look in 2030 when the Ukraine's trucking around with Leo 2A5P+s from Poland, and Georgia is outfitted with M1A2 SEP V1s?  The reason we have not replaced the M4/M16 family in the US military is not because there are not better rifles, it is because there is no rifle better to the degree to make the investment worthwhile.

 

If the point is simply to outmatch the T-72/T-64 equipped neighbors, then I feel the expense put in will simply ensure the Armata will merely ensure Russia is 10-15 years behind the west for another few decades, because once the Armata is in motion for procurement, it's doubtful they could afford another, better, greater tank.

 

 

 

Yup, and that raises the interesting point that the NATO/West can only coast for so long with its current inventory and upgrades before it too will have to knuckle down and spend vast amounts of treasure to change things over to a new generation of vehicles. Unfortunately, the NATO/West economies are not presently in good shape for such a change if it were to happen today. Which means the same arguments I'm making about Russia's ability to afford its designs apply to NATO/Western nations as well. Just not today since today it has no need to replace everything.

 

Well, honestly the answer for most of the NATO/West is count on the US military being strong enough to bail them out.  I'm of the mind we should go into the "border insurance" business, and for a modest fee (effectively the cost of stationing US troops plus a few billion or something) we'll be there if someone invades.

 

It's basically what most of NATO minus Poland seems to count on now, might as well make a buck doing it!

 

 

 

Russia will take longer and spend more money than it intends to make a family of vehicles that have less than currently advertised. At least one of the proposed family of vehicles will run into some sort of really nasty problem and be more affected than the other two. Once the vehicles are ready for mass production they will be introduced slowly over a fairly long period of time and never obtain fielding rates beyond 30% without major reinvestment in upgrades or replacements.

 

I concur for the most part.  

 

 

 

Indeed! When someone gets "in my face" about that they cite all the burned up crews in Shermans and ask if I would have been happy being one of them. My answer is always the same... odds say that if I were a Sherman crew in WW2 ETO I had a better chance of coming out alive than a German crew simply because of the odds. If you're one of 5 tanks you have less a chance of being killed than if you are in 1 of 1 tank.

 

Not to mention plenty of US tankers and troops never saw any German tank, let alone Panthers/Tigers/etc, while nearly every frontline German soldier had an encounter with US armor.  I'd rather have enough of a tank everywhere, than more than enough tank in select locals only.

[sburke]

Wow. Funny thing just popped into my head. I remember having discussions like this on USENET back in the early 1990s. I remember advocating a smaller, leaner, meaner Russian armed force at the time. I was in my early 20s at the time. Oddly enough 15 years later Russia figured out that was the correct course of action. Amazing how consistently clueless I've been about military matters over the years

Steve

Geez you're young.  Good to know, you should be cranking out games well into my retirement.  All is good with the world.

[Battlefront.com]

It's like that old cliche about amateurs reading up on tactics, professionals studying logistics.

Yup. Years and years and years of debating German Panzernerden have prepared me very well for debates like this, I think What's the point of having the "best tank in the world" if most of them are broken down at any given time and the rest are getting chewed up faster than new ones can be made? Then again, I'm one of those who think Germany lost WW2 in 1941, not 1945 so I'm obviously nuts

 

But here's the thing, if it's not designed to go toe to toe with M1A2s and Leo 2s (and it will almost certainly not be fielded in the sort of numbers to drown a potential enemy in Armatas), how are things going to look in 2030 when the Ukraine's trucking around with Leo 2A5P+s from Poland, and Georgia is outfitted with M1A2 SEP V1s?  The reason we have not replaced the M4/M16 family in the US military is not because there are not better rifles, it is because there is no rifle better to the degree to make the investment worthwhile.

 

If the point is simply to outmatch the T-72/T-64 equipped neighbors, then I feel the expense put in will simply ensure the Armata will merely ensure Russia is 10-15 years behind the west for another few decades, because once the Armata is in motion for procurement, it's doubtful they could afford another, better, greater tank.

As the list of neighbors who are openly opposed to Russian style "partnerships" increases, so to does Russia's odds of having to fight against Western weapons, fighting techniques, and/or even overt alliances. This, in turn, requires a force which can go toe-to-toe with Western type forces. Because Russia's economy and population are dwarfed by the West, there's little chance Russia can come up with such a force. Worse, for Russia, is the fact that its neighbors are slipping out of its orbit faster than it can produce a military capable of forcing them to remain in it. Ukraine is the big example of that right now, but Belrus and Kazakhstan are reevaluating their options. And then there's the Caucuses and Georgia looking to change the status quo to Russia's detriment.

Even if Russia miraculously flies through A/K/B development with near perfection, and finds the money to outfit its forces in quantity within a very short period of time, whatever Russia intends to use this new force for will already be outside of its reach. Which means, as I have argued, that it is a major waste of money.

 

Not to mention plenty of US tankers and troops never saw any German tank, let alone Panthers/Tigers/etc, while nearly every frontline German soldier had an encounter with US armor.  I'd rather have enough of a tank everywhere, than more than enough tank in select locals only.

Yes, but they did run into plenty of AT weapons capable of hollowing out a Sherman pretty thoroughly. But your point is still valid. I'd rather be the guy in command of a force that could put tanks anywhere in the line on any day and generally find no armor rather than the other guy who knows that anytime he puts armor anywhere it will be opposed by armor.

Steve