Jump to content

Armata soon to be in service.


Lee_Vincent

Recommended Posts

John Kettler

 

I have no idea about those masts. As for LWS receivers/sensors, it'd be easier if I'll show it to you myself. T-90A has Shtora-1 with IR dazzlers. T-90SM does not have IR dazzlers, just LWS recievers. Both can automatically pop smoke when being lased.

 

T-90A:

 

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qegYQuW8nJE/VSi56qgZBII/AAAAAAAAFzo/FjiU0a6tWh8/s1523/t-90a_over.jpg

 

T-90SM:

 

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-CUNDWU5OlCU/VSi7brbhQVI/AAAAAAAAFz0/e-NJ5fwHtAQ/s2000/t-90sm_over.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L0ckAndL0ad,

 

Viewing angle is all. With the benefit of a better POV, I now understand your argument and concur. I'm quite familiar with the dazzler and how it works, and it was something discussed in threat docs while I was still in military aerospace. Something that outshouted and injected false missile behavior signals into the guidance loop was obviously of direct concern to the firm which built TOW. To be clear, T-90SM is the correct designation for the latest model Russian homeland T-90 model, right? Has Russia abandoned MIL for smoke deployment? I know that was the standard mode for Shtora-1. Also, based on what I've seen in vids on YT and in very small sample size CMBS experience, I think the Russians, by opting to fire their obscurant grenades farther, are leaving themselves vulnerable while the screen is deploying. I got at least one kill this way because the screen couldn't deploy fast enough to deny the shot, and the blow hit before the tank could start reversing, whereas one of my Abrams in that same QB did get the screen deployed in time after being lased and smartly reversed from its hulldown position on a ridge without getting hit. Please just call me John. It's my real name.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No John, T-90SM is not a homeland T-90 model. There are T-90S for export, and T-90A for Mother Russia. Modernized versions of them add "M" to that name. It's that simple.

 

Not sure what a MIL is. Shtora smoke grenades are different from the usual ones. I have not seen a single video from RL that shows how tank employs smoke screen (except for the one generated with engine). What I have seen is how BMP-3M equipped with Shtora employs smokescreen:

 

http://www.kurganmash.ru/public/createmovie.php?titlebrouser=Shtora-1+Protection+system+against+high-precision+weapons&title=Smoke+screen+setting&uri=machines/bmp3u/protection/shtora&file=shtora_zavesa.html

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the conscripts thing in particular seemed way off giventhe dedicated enlisted men working in the parade.  Thats a higher priority than just some backwater post out East somewhere :P

 

Exactly. At the same time, going through all the material, new gen vehicles still look simple, rugged and, well, Russian. Maybe even cleaner and simpler than earlier designs.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The turret seems well sloped and smallish, it could be very well armored for a 55 tons tank since its basically only a gun with mecanisms.

 

This was my point several pages back. There will be lots of inert space around the turret with nothing but wires and emptiness in it. Probably covered in ERA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L0ckAndL0ad,

 

Hadn't seen that vid before. Wish it had a time track on it. If we're going to play CMBS on/near dry anything combustible, then BFC needs to get fire sorted out soonest. This was an issue identified during WASP CM studies as something likely to be a real problem when Red Army tank columns moving on various German wooded roads deployed broadband obscurants to defend against missile attack. We expected the resultant fires to be a serious operational issue, especially when looked at from a macro level.

 

Turning now to tank designators, are you saying the T-90AM, which elsewhere on this forum I've read doesn't exist but is a reasonable projection of Russian Army tank capabilities, does already exist and is in service? Wasn't try to be obscure with the acronym, having seen others use it on this Forum, but "MIL" is Man-In-the Loop and refers to any system in which a human must make a decision before the process can go forward. In the case of Shtora-1, the default case is the LWR is lased and displays the threat direction on an indicator dial. In order to deploy obscurant grenades, a button must be pushed. This increases the total response time needed from LWR lasing event to the AFV's being  invisible to enemy visual and IR means. In CMBS, US tanks are an auto response to being lased. I believe Shtora-1 can do MIL or automatic, but am pretty sure I read that MIL is the standard mode.

 

BTR,

 

That looks like the same parade ground we saw in the earlier Victory Day Parade practice video. Have to say I find this business of watching a tank being "born" to be quite exciting, never having seen anything like this before.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, John. Designation exists, tank in actual service - does not. UVZ has a few SMs, but that's it. As for the Shtora, yeah, from what I've read, it can do both modes.

 

Speaking of smoke. Rogozin showed a new smoke hand grenade that works similarly:

 

https://youtu.be/GFKhQFTQ-xc

 

First ones are stun grenades, then comes thermobaric grenade, then smoke.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, I have two off-topic questions and I do not want to start a new thread:

1) Do helicopters also have laser warning systems these days?

2) Can the (co-axial?) gun sight of a modern tank gun move independently (at least a small amount) of the turret or does the gunner loose sight of the target once the gun starts to lead?

Best regards,

Thomm

Edited by Thomm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Yes, or at least it's not uncommon.

 

2) Most modern optics are mounted on top of the tank.  The elevation/lead when induced does not change the gunner's view, it simply adjusts the guntube accordingly.  The gunner's auxiliary optics which are located co-axially to the gun on the Abrams do no move independent of the gun.  You will not lose sight of the target when manually inducing lead unless you're trying to shoot down a fighter jet or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This vid shows Armata and predecessors. It has the virtue of putting a lot of useful images and video (plus not so useful PS bull) in one location, but it lacks captions pointing out what's what and from when. To me, the extensive text is far more interesting than the imagery For one, it says there are two flavors of Armata, the 125 mm 2A82 version we've been discussing, and another with a putative 152 mm. The text is heavily footnoted, but the actual footnotes are missing. Text word count limit, maybe? In any event, a pity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMx9iWQ6w4s

 

Also, I know the tank shown for over three minutes here isn't Armata (obviously much earlier), but in the sea of pics posted to this thread, I don't recall this one. Would like to know, please, what this one is and whether the narration has anything useful in it. Despite the common keyframes, the one below is a different vid than the earlier one.

 


 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nerdwing,

 

Which one? The first one's all over the place, which is why I find the lack of captions lamentable. It's rather like a gearbox with the wrong gears, so it simply won't mesh. I wish one of our people would put together a vid, preferably in English or with English subtitles, which clearly and cogently showed the pertinent Object AFVs, their dates, significant design features and such, so we could see the genesis of the Armata. That vid would be helpful here and would serve, I believe, to nullify a lot of YT codswallop on the subject. Additionally, in another vid I saw something called Object 640. Judging from the engine sounds I heard, it's powered by a pretty quiet gas turbine. Where does Object 640 fit into the overall progression toward Armata?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

akd,

 

Though I'm obviously not doing a very good job of it, I am trying to get a handle on the questions I raised. Does someone have a site you know of in which the various Objects are set forth, together with their context to develop a new tank or tank technologies? What Fofanov has is wonderful, but it's not all that extensive and is certainly not current.

 

It's not, for example, all that difficult to trace the design paths which led to the Abrams, else Hunnicutt wouldn't have two big volumes out on the subject, but to this doesn't speak Russian westerner, things are far less clear. There has been an enormous amount of Russian armor development work of which I know little or nothing, and I keep finding myself feeling, in this and similar threads, as though there's a spirited discussion going on around that seems most interesting, yet I can pick up and follow only a relatively small part of what's said. I'm getting better, which is to say somewhat less lost, but I expect it'll be quite some time yet before I can nimbly navigate through Russian turret designs, optronics, vetronics, automated command systems and much else. I may have to start learning Russian, a project I dabbled with many years a go.  Am on a very steep learning curve presently, one which is more vertical than the one for learning CMx2, and ask you to please bear with me. That said, I find what I'm seeing and reading fascinating, for the kinds of things routinely seen here and elsewhere generally weren't to be had during the Cold War. And we wanted them desperately.

 

A particular tank would be in production, yet we might not see one and photograph that type for six or more years, as was the case with certain models of the T-64, which was never paraded. Luckily for us, the Russians wanted to show off the T-72, to such an extent they let the French crawl all over one in Moscow. The resultant pics had those who follow such things in treadhead ecstasy and wonderment, for such a thing had never occurred before. "Here, tovarisch, we put our ammunition on glacis plate, so you can see it." And while here in the US top photo interpreters had been meticulously poring over  every pic they could get in trying to figure out the cannon bore, the French were told it and allowed to measure it for themselves. I wish I had some sort of master reset button to push in how I perceive the immense wealth of Russian tank and other AFV material here, but I am still very much looking at this stuff from the perspective of a Cold War era analyst. I'm doing much better, though, with the SAMs, which were/are much easier to characterize, in terms of performance, than tanks. One of the great shocks of live fire testing for the WASP missile program was the discovery that even slight repositioning of elements within a composite armor array, never mind changing what those elements consisted of, was undetectable by satellite and could completely negate our very potent missile warhead. This is the sort of thing which goes through my head when looking at this stuff. Also, thanks to having a STASI agent who was an assistant to German Chancellor Willi Brandt, Chobham was compromised practically as soon as it was created, but so sensitive was it that the term "siliceous core" wasn't even declassified until the early 1980s. I happened to see the one page order. The Chobham armor Wiki has more info on Chobham than I saw in my entire time in military aerospace.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tank looks like 1/3rd Leclerc, 1/3rd Stryker MGS with the remaining being an old DoD testbed vehicle to test crew-in-hull concept. Maybe it works exactly as advertised - but then again maybe it doesn't. Stryker MGS was very nearly declared 'combat ineffective' during its time in Iraq. And let's recall the failure of M60A2 'Starship' and 'Sheridan' light tank. Sometimes attempts at 'cutting-edge technology' can cut both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CiberAlex,

 

Welcome aboard!

 

With so much having been said about Armata and pics posted all over the place in a number of threads, never mind the pics of all the various Objects, coming up with a duplicate picture is really no big deal. We are interested in your thoughts regarding this tank and other Armata family members, and if the pic you found helps you express yourself, perhaps illustrates some point you wish to convey, then no one will say a word. If you happen to conjure up an Armata pic we haven't seen yet, then many (good) words shall be uttered, and great shall be your name throughout the land. Even better, you'll get grog points and we'll marvel at how you got that amazing pic.

 

MikeyD,

 

What a droll characterization. Reminds me of some of the shorthand used to sell (dim) studio execs on film projects. I always thought the MGS was stupid. We would've been much better off with Italian the Centauro. If you're going to have an eggshell with a hammer, to use JasonC's wonderful characterization, then make sure it can really hit and really move, as in ~60 mph top road speed. It's tougher frontally than the Stryker and can be made tougher still. Also, its lethal 120 mm gun makes it ammo compatible with NATO tanks.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...