Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

I think we're having altogether too much fun hazing poor Armata. Every new weapons system has its teething problems.  Armata looks pretty much like a 'lessons learned' design exercise based on every U.S. DARPA and Pentagon technology project of the past 30 years. I recall reading of American crew-in-hull and overhead gun design studies in the 1980s. Then there were the integrated sensors studies, the active defense system studies, modular bolt-on armor studies. Its our own fault if our own studies so rarely bear fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the tank destroyer thing, in addition to the doctrinal usage Armata reportedly weights in around 56 tons which puts it well within MBT territory.

 

Already beaten to the punch, but Germany fielded the Jagdtiger that was even heavier than the Armata. The Panther was no lightweight compared to other Medium tanks of the day. Weight, therefore, is not really a good indicator.

I do understand panzersaurkrautwerfer's argument that tanks have all kinds of tradeoffs and they are still tanks. Doctrine is definitely an important, if not definitive, way to separate vehicle types. However, I'm thinking that a tank could alter balances so much from the norm that it deserves a new category. For example, we differentiate between Light, Medium, Heavy, and Super Heavy Tanks because no matter how they are used (doctrine), they are inherently different classes of vehicle

Again, I do not know if Armata really qualifies as the first of a new class. Just throwing it out there for discussion :)

 

The actual turret superstructure can probably have another outer array thrown onto it. As of now the plates don't have mounting spigots for any ERA, it doesn't look like there is any composite material or ERA under the plates either. Modularity of ERA has always been a key design feature for Russian armourers, K1,K5, Relikt can all be thrown on the same platform.

The thing is I'd expect them to put ERA on the turret for the parade, even if painted foam board, if they intended it to deploy it. So the fact that it is not present indicates, to me, that it's not intended to be there.

Think about it. ERA is heavy so that puts strain on the vehicle and, specifically in this case, the turret ring and traverse mechanism. It also seems unlikely that ERA could be mounted successfully on such thin covers, which means removing them or substituting them with a thicker material which puts even more weight on the turret. Further, it appears that some of the covers are indeed that... covers. If ERA were put on them then they would become difficult to function as covers. Lastly, there is the cost of all this.

Considering that there is no crew to protect and it appears the turret is designed to be "expendable", perhaps that makes the tradeoffs unfavorable for turret ERA.

Or...

 

My guess is that it will have mountings under the housings we see on it today for some kind of ERA arrays that can go over the top in place of the plating. Kind of like was planned for Obj640. See how the actual turret superstructure is only a small portion of the actual turret profile with the mantlet being relatively close to the top of the ERA arrays and outside of the superstructure, and that the ERA arrays was bolted onto the top of this unmanned superstructure itself. http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/640_armor.html

Of course this is also possible ;)

 

Also, longest thread on BF Forums?

 

Nope! But it is sure a long one :)

 

I think we're having altogether too much fun hazing poor Armata. Every new weapons system has its teething problems.  Armata looks pretty much like a 'lessons learned' design exercise based on every U.S. DARPA and Pentagon technology project of the past 30 years. I recall reading of American crew-in-hull and overhead gun design studies in the 1980s. Then there were the integrated sensors studies, the active defense system studies, modular bolt-on armor studies. Its our own fault if our own studies so rarely bear fruit.

here here. I really do not think people should be jumping too hard on the breakdown/user error at this stage of the game. At worse it is simply an indication that the Armata is not quite ready for parade duty. Which is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. If these were production vehicles then I'd be humming an entirely different tune!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're having altogether too much fun hazing poor Armata. Every new weapons system has its teething problems.  Armata looks pretty much like a 'lessons learned' design exercise based on every U.S. DARPA and Pentagon technology project of the past 30 years. I recall reading of American crew-in-hull and overhead gun design studies in the 1980s. Then there were the integrated sensors studies, the active defense system studies, modular bolt-on armor studies. Its our own fault if our own studies so rarely bear fruit.

 

Agreed absolutely.  And with Steve's endpoint as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 It also seems unlikely that ERA could be mounted successfully on such thin covers, which means removing them or substituting them with a thicker material which puts even more weight on the turret. 

 

A possibly obscure example of ERA and thin armor not being good partners is the Soviet era studies for putting K1 ERA on Bmp-1. It was found K1 explosion would inflict damage comparable to the impact of the weapon K1 was meant to stop. An example of this is that Assadite forces have ample surplus K1 tiles but don't employ them on that platform despite widespread attempts to up-armor it. In essence chu gun need thicka steel fo dem tiles or ERA might pose a great risk of causing damage to secondary systems that simply allowing projectile through might have prevented. This seems especially reasonable if there is minimal chance of anyone getting killed by a penetration.

 

Also shout out to LnL for eloquence in the face of adversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A possibly obscure example of ERA and thin armor not being good partners is the Soviet era studies for putting K1 ERA on Bmp-1. It was found K1 explosion would inflict damage comparable to the impact of the weapon K1 was meant to stop. An example of this is that Assadite forces have ample surplus K1 tiles but don't employ them on that platform despite widespread attempts to up-armor it. In essence chu gun need thicka steel fo dem tiles or ERA might pose a great risk of causing damage to secondary systems that simply allowing projectile through might have prevented. This seems especially reasonable if there is minimal chance of anyone getting killed by a penetration.

That was part of my point, but you described it much better. Basic physics dictate that whatever holds the ERA must be strong enough to absorb the portion of the ERA's energy that is directed away from the strike. In firearms terms it would be call "recoil". Similar to a small/thin woman I saw firing a MP-5 from the shoulder. A man had to brace her shoulder so she didn't fall backwards. But a normal sized man would never fall over from firing a MP-5.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think we're having altogether too much fun hazing poor Armata.

 

Well yeah, because it's schadenfreude, the best kind of freude*!

 

Tractor comments aside, this is exactly what I believe, all sniping aside:

 

 

On having many Armatas:

 

Russia is not in the best economic shape, and this economic situation has strongly influenced historical weapons procurement.  Additionally the "newer" (i.e., the M1 Abrams vs M60, rather than the M1A1 vs M1A2) the platform, the more dramatic the friction in getting it fully operational.  Russia/the USSR's historical performance in fielding new equipment also indicates it is not at all immune to this sort of friction.

 

From this I feel it is likely we will see one or both of the following:

 

1. New vehicle production will never reach full allocation.  Some units will receive some or all of their allocation, but the Armata and friends will remain a sort of land MI-28, behind schedule and vastly outnumbered by the platforms it "replaced" in service.

 

2. Technical issues will result in vehicles that are different than what has been promised.  Afganit attacks gingers and needs to be replaced with Arena-M.  The forces exerted by the new weapon on the unmanned turret cause breakdowns and a smaller propellant charge is required.  Turret automation is so brilliantly successful that the gunner's position is simply omitted in production model vehicles.  

 

In terms of the vehicle:

 

I am so amazingly unsold on the unmanned turret.  I can see the "why," I just don't think its worth the trade-offs it offers.

 

In all honestly we have to really:

 

1. Wait until closer to 2017 to definitively say if it's going to be on-time.  The Russians did do a lot of the R&D in the dark, so progress out of sight and mind is possible..  This doesn't mean we have to believe all the super tank supreme rumors that come out, it simply means it's hard to measure progress beyond what is claimed, which is usually bloated propaganda (danke Russia Today)  which presents a skewed perspective of the "progress."  

 

On the other hand, it looks like there's a few pretty big glitches to work out, and some of the components are unfinished/very immature.  And the Russian economic situation is not getting much better.  There's about equal reasons to doubt, as to believe.

 

2. Have Armatas in service somewhere for a while.  If the internet is full of Russian professional soldiers screaming about how bad the new platforms are, how they're junk, and have been replaced by BMP-1s assembled from scrap, then we can for sure say they're terribad.  If they perform fairly well, then we can say they are something worth paying attention to.

 

The issues during the parade to me, simply are a reality check to anyone who mistakes "going to the parade!" for being close to ready for prime time military service.  All new systems have issues, both technical and integration.  This is to be expected.  Just some of the assertions of how ready it is, and how we're on the verge of armatasm needed to come back to earth. 

 

*As voted in 2011's "Best of Big German Words" magazine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just an issue of explosive reactive modules and thin armor, I recall reading the armor equivalence of a ceramic tile plate is directly proportional to the thickness of soft steel plate backing it up! Thin backing plate - low level of protection. When Stryker Brigade was on its way to Iraq it was discovered that someone had read the specs wrong and given all of the MEXAS ceramic tiles the wrong thickness of backing plate. Ooops! The vehicles all had to be fitted with an extra 5mm soft steel plate behind every tile to get it up to spec.Man, that sounds like a pain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already said I was paraphrasing your position, not that you literally said that word for word. I think it's a language thing because others understood that it was not a direct quote. I do understand that you might not have picked up on that, other than the fact you know you didn't say it and therefore I obviously wasn't quoting you.

Steve

 

OMG, of course, when I said that you've "quoted something I've never said", it was a figure of speech. Of course I meant that you were paraphrasing. It just doesn't sound good "you paraphrased something I've never said", people don't say that, or at least I haven't seen them to. You're missing the point. And the point is, I've never said anything close to what you've paraphrased of me saying. Never intended anything like that. THE ONLY time I used a wrong word (about specific IFV features), I corrected myself. Everything else, I've never expressed any "certainty". Yet you somehow came up with that "paraphrase" that contains stuff that I've never said or intended to say. And when I asked you to quote where I said something like this, you did not, and neither did the other guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was part of my point, but you described it much better. Basic physics dictate that whatever holds the ERA must be strong enough to absorb the portion of the ERA's energy that is directed away from the strike. In firearms terms it would be call "recoil". Similar to a small/thin woman I saw firing a MP-5 from the shoulder. A man had to brace her shoulder so she didn't fall backwards. But a normal sized man would never fall over from firing a MP-5.

Steve

 

That is not physically necessary. Of course you are right that attaching ERA tiles to a surface that can withstand the explosion of the ERA tile is technically desirable, but from a physical point of view the ERA tiles explosion, given that the charge is large enough, would destroy the metal spike of a HEAT round even if the surface to which the ERA tile is attached can not withstand the explosion of the ERA tile. Same concept as a recoilless gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two notes regarding T-14's outer shell and ERA. Shell doesn't have to be something you attach armor/ERA tiles to. The gun itself is covered by some other layer, which can be seen on some shots, including the one AKD recently posted, with left side projection. ERA? Doesn't have to contain explosive material at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like how the Russians seem to have incorporated so many pieces of modern tech into one vehicle. Go big, or go home. (Yes, that's a compliment.)

 

I'm curious about the turret ring. The old rule of thumb was that the diameter of the turret ring determined the maximum muzzle energy of the weapon. All those recoil forces/impulses need to go somewhere. That "somewhere" is the turret ring. Sure, newer materials can yield higher strengths, better recoil systems can soften the impulse by distributing the force over more time, but the ring still takes the hit.

 

The Armata's turret ring seems VERY small for weapon of that size.

 

Of course, it could be that all the other turrets are just too big, due to having to have a basket and room for the men in the turret. Or, it could just be that the scale of the thing makes the turret look smaller than it really is.

 

I want to see firing trials! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all I can say is Lockandload has provided some great photo's. I am impressed with the amount of views and what we have seen from these posting.

I am also impressed with what Russia is trying to do here as to their next generation of armor.

I could care less with all the comments and speculations of how it will play out in the future and what will happen, The one thing I have learned is men are terrible at predicting future events and normally History proves that unexpected things happen plenty, not because it was not possible, but because nations or people were unwilling to predict it as a real possibility because they just did not want to see it that way. (In other words, the Human race loves to fool themselves into their own wanted beliefs.)

I can also tell, Steve is not showing any interest in adding these machines into the present game because it does not make logical sense. OK, what we need to be requesting is a new game with a new conflict breaking out around 2020 with these machines. Steve needs to stop being so logical and remember we all just want a game with new toys to play with. I will even be nice, no need to start that game until we manage to get some hard data on what these new machines can really do and what they are really made of.

Edited by slysniper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New tech...

 

C-17 was rolled out by a VERY experienced aircraft manufacturer, McDonnell Douglas. It underwent extensive testing and development. Boeing then bought MD, and continued with production/development.

 

On it's first flight to cross the equator, every autopilot failed as it crossed southbound. Hmmm, why'd that happen? I dunno. Boeing sent all the techs down and examined the aircraft. 3 days later, they announced the problem found, and resolved. They launched it back north over the equator. And every autopilot failed again.

 

Aircraft have been crossing the equator with electronic systems for decades. How did they screw this one up? Complexity. Does it work fine now? Yep.

 

I expect many, many, many teething issues to crop up with the AKB family. I expect the vast majority of them to be resolved.

 

Being unable to drive a vehicle with a functioning engine is obviously part of that technological complexity. Computers sometimes get in the way of simple mechanical systems.

 

I still want firing trial footage. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me about five minutes to learn how to drive the Abrams in the mechanical sense.  I could drive through a training area that didn't have things I could break, down roads etc.  I'm not sure if I'd trusted my skills driving down a single lane road with cars on both sides, but driving a tank is not hard, and you have to proactively find ways to turn off the engine to really kill the tank*.  

 

It might be there's ways to really bone the tank and cause it to mobility kill itself, but I'm hard pressed to think of "oh of course he hit the itnerociter and now the flux capacitor is out of alignment!" sort of moments.  Driving a tank in a straight line is easy, and from that here's some fairly reasonable scenarios: 

 

1. The Armata has some serious user interface issues that can cause the operator to  shut down  the tank during strictly basic maneuvering operations.

 

2.  The Armata has a fault that can cause engine shutdown during normal operations.

 

3.  Russian Army drivers are not trained well enough to drive more or less in a straight line without breaking the tank.

 

Either way a 15 minute reset is interesting in that if it is just a matter of a driver error, it means it takes significant time to accomplish a restart, which is no good at all.  

 

*About the only "Do not do ever" thing we had to discuss was turning on the engine without the hull power on, as that could end badly. 

 

 

My guess is that their systems are built on top of windows 8 and either it froze on them or went in to an automatic OS update mode that locked up the tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the thin plated turret cover: I was looking at the shape, and that shape is very much like stealth planes/ships/vehicles. And the new Russian AFV's have radar targeting devices. Could it be that they decrease the radar signature of the turret with a tin plate profile around the actual hardware because they assume radar might become an important device? Just a weird idea by somebody who doesn't know anything about modern tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, of course, when I said that you've "quoted something I've never said", it was a figure of speech. Of course I meant that you were paraphrasing. It just doesn't sound good "you paraphrased something I've never said", people don't say that, or at least I haven't seen them to. You're missing the point. And the point is, I've never said anything close to what you've paraphrased of me saying. Never intended anything like that. THE ONLY time I used a wrong word (about specific IFV features), I corrected myself. Everything else, I've never expressed any "certainty". Yet you somehow came up with that "paraphrase" that contains stuff that I've never said or intended to say. And when I asked you to quote where I said something like this, you did not, and neither did the other guy.

 

We are having a language problem, for sure. I was summarizing your position, as expressed in dozens of posts, using a generally accepted technique in English. I've never had anybody, and I do mean that, have an issue with the methodology. You are obviously the first :D So please just accept that you are misinterpreting what I said and leave it at that. Because there isn't anything more to it to be discussed.

Now, did I summarize your position the same way you would have? I doubt it because I summarized your position, as argued by you over dozens of posts, based on my interpretation. You can debate that if you like, but I'm not interested in doing so. It will get neither of us anywhere.

 

That is not physically necessary. Of course you are right that attaching ERA tiles to a surface that can withstand the explosion of the ERA tile is technically desirable, but from a physical point of view the ERA tiles explosion, given that the charge is large enough, would destroy the metal spike of a HEAT round even if the surface to which the ERA tile is attached can not withstand the explosion of the ERA tile. Same concept as a recoilless gun.

See previous statements that the ERA could cause damage to the vehicle itself if not properly reinforced. As I understand it the primary problem isn't that it allows for a penetration, but rather encourages significant damage to the vehicle which is not easily fixed.

 

Two notes regarding T-14's outer shell and ERA. Shell doesn't have to be something you attach armor/ERA tiles to. The gun itself is covered by some other layer, which can be seen on some shots, including the one AKD recently posted, with left side projection. ERA? Doesn't have to contain explosive material at all.

ERA = Explosive Reactive Armor

Not sure how you can have ERA without the E part :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So please just accept that you are misinterpreting what I said and leave it at that. Because there isn't anything more to it to be discussed.

Now, did I summarize your position the same way you would have? I doubt it because I summarized your position, as argued by you over dozens of posts, based on my interpretation. You can debate that if you like, but I'm not interested in doing so. It will get neither of us anywhere.

 

Oh, there is. You've summarized "my position" in a way that sounded really stupid. When it wasn't my position in the first place. That's offensive, especially when you can't back it up with my actual words about my position. Wanna keep being a liar? No problemo. Don't discuss it further.

ERA = Explosive Reactive Armor

Not sure how you can have ERA without the E part :D

NERA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour#Non-explosive_and_non-energetic_reactive_armour

I remember reading something about Russians working on those, but can't really remember anything right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You've summarized "my position" in a way that sounded really stupid.........

 

If it quacks like a duck......

 

Seriously though, Steve, he obviously needs to have the last word on this (in his sarcastic way). For the sake of winding down this "debate", please let him have it.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...