I saw the above images floating around the net a couple of days ago but just dismissed them as more concept art designed to drive people to the guys website...I mean he kinda went crazy with the watermarks!
Dragon however linked to this website and supposedly this is also part of the Armata program!
Confused yet? I certainly am. I was under the impression that this was going to be a single family of vehicles that had both wheeled and tracked versions based on the same basic hull.
Now? I'm not so sure. They might share components, engines etc..but it looks like we're seeing unique designs for the MBT, IFV, APC and Wheeled APC.
T-15 (object 149) is the name of the IFV. The tank has the designation T-14 (object 148)
ReplyDeletewell aware. i did read the article. what is confusing is that so many different type vehicles are all under the same program. the US Army learned the lesson of that with the FCS program.
ReplyDeleteSo is this basically the "IFV" configuration to the "heavy universal platform" (T14 hull)?
ReplyDeleteIm trying to find the source (I think it was russia defence), but apparently in the heavy chassis, the engine can be front or rear mounted. Dont quote me on that, as I may have misread what was typed.
It has the Terminator tank destroyer style turret. I imagined seeing it show up on something else, but an IFV was the last thing on my mind. Interesting design.
ReplyDeleteIt's not impossible to use a common hull between tracked and wheeled vehicles, GD's Stryker and Tracked Syryker have shown that and it is certainly possible for tracked IFV's to share hulls with tanks, heavy IFV's based on tanks liker the Namer and T-64 IFV have shown that.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is probably much easier, cheaper, and time efficient (development wise) to share components among vehicles as opposed to hulls. After all, heavy IFV's are named with "Heavy" for a reason, a wheeled APC based on a chassis that is common to a tank and an IFV would be very heavy and likely not mobile in its traditional sense.
Then again, if prototype Russian vehicles of recent years are any indiction, especially those made in conjunction with France, the Russian are heading towards having a very heavy fleet across every type so who knows.
That's an interesting hull design. The extreme hull design encourages incoming rounds to ricochet, and even if it doesn't ricochet a round has more thickness to penetrate. The line of sight thickness for a vehicle in a horizontal position can be calculated by a simple formula, applying the cosine rule: it is equal to the armor's normal thickness divided by the cosine of the armor's inclination from perpendicularity to the missile's travel, assumed here to be horizontal. (h/t wiki)
ReplyDeleteNow that hull in the photo looks like it's about seventy degrees back from the vertical, and the cosine of seventy degrees is about 1/3, so the line-of-sight thickness is about three times the hull thickness.
if you're engaging armor from the front and you're in anything less than a M1 Abrams then you're doing it wrong. what has my attention is what appears to be a missile countermeasure system on the back of the turret, a couple of missiles that i can't tell if they're anti-tank or anti-aircraft and those big juicy optics that are exposed for designated marksmen, snipers or properly trained riflemen to aim at.
ReplyDelete@I was under the impression that this was going to be a single family of vehicles that had both wheeled and tracked versions based on the same basic hull.@
ReplyDeleteYes, they are.
http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/userfiles/1(74).jpg
And not only this type of module – you can see a similar module with 57-mm gun on different platforms – on
the photo below
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6503/94845085.b4/0_88874_886e59c2_XL
They are neither cheap nor do they work
ReplyDeleteNew build A10s would cost a lot more than the current models, inflation and all that, which would make the flying hour cost increase significantly.
Even when the A10 was designed, its primary weapon was its stand off ranged guided missiles.
The battlefield is an awfully dangerous place to take a hit even for a main battle tank with 20t of chobham/Dorchester armour, a jet with a milimeters thick titanium bathtub isn't taking much of a beating.
The turret is armed with the standard 2A42 canon with 500 rounds, 4 Kornet ATGW, and a GPMG with 2000 rounds.
ReplyDeleteThe "Terminator" or rather Obiekt 199 "Ramka" is not a tank destroyer but heavy tank support vehicle. He can engage more or less light to medium armored targets but God's forbid him to engage a full blood tank.
ReplyDeleteIn this video of KBP you can see the turret of the T-15
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwyMLPo3p_Y
@ Solomon
ReplyDelete" a next gen sniper pod and other such systems are years ahead of what is built into the F-35! you want to talk about IRST?"
Ok... I have experience with both systems. You are incorrect.
The problem with a targeting pod is that it isn't integrated with the avionics on legacy. And if you do integrate it it's a bit of a hack that increases pilot workload and errors.
Plus it's strange to think that a targeting pod made by the same people who do F35 EOTS would be widely dissimilar in capability.
Think on it a bit... if a pod were truly better than F35 sensors would that not encourage F15/ F16 to be modernized... but CAPES was canceled. Why do that it the sensors on F35 are not at least as good?
Sensor Fusion is pretty cool but time will tell if it's the game changer stealth was promised to be.
Ok on CAS new system.
ReplyDeleteWhat this alludes to is that there are not going to be as many F35As bought as planned. Everyone knows it might as well admit it.
But since there are going to be less As this means that the Air Force will have fewer platforms to do missions. This means that instead of tagging F35As as CAS there would be another platform to help. Probably a Reaper type UAS. If Air Force does not get this idea started they probably will get stuck with fewer F35s and not A10s and no other platform to help CAS.
On stealth not being as important as fusion.
sigh... this is the first public indication that the problems with maintenance and support experienced with F22 are coming home to roost with F35.
The best layman illustration I can give is that the F22 is like a Race Car. It's maintained at a pristine near perfect mint condition to do it's mission (yes I;m simplifying it LO purists... but hang with me).
The idea for F35 was to make a more "rough and ready" stealth platform. A platform that could be less pristine and still be effective. It was not going to have the souped up engine or specially tuned carburetor... etc. But it could still race with the best of them.
What the "fusion is the new stealth killer capability for F35" meme recognizes is that F35 stealth has not made it through the design development process as the Air Force hoped. Now they have to apologize for the gap in promised vs delivered capability. Or even more ominous the promised capability at a given maintenance cost expectation.
In the end I think that F35 will be a fine plane. But I also feel that F35 exposes the Defense Industrial Base shortcomings in making an affordable large unit order platform these days. DoD guys have loved saying that "Trade Analysis" and "Prototypes" are excellent means to keep your contractors healthy for when you really need a new platform. But what F35 shows is without a mass buy you lose some of your manufacturing capability and experience. And without that cost per unit affordability you lose political points to budget hawks.
As I understand it, the F-35 will have its own unique log support, separate from USAF/USN/USMC existing networks--
ReplyDeleteSupply Chain Management: The F-35 plans to utilize Performance Based Logistics (PBL) to allow the Government customers to purchase, via the JPO, a package of support structured to meet each Government's operational requirements and optimize readiness of the F-35 Air System, including Supply Chain Management (SCM) support. It is the intent of the F-35 JPO to take maximum advantage of existing public and private capabilities to achieve the balance between affordability and performance. In that light, the following areas represent the SCM functions under consideration for competition:
a. Shipping Containers
b. Deactivation, Demilitarization & Disposal
c. Regional Warehousing
d. Transportation & Distribution Services for Spares
from SAR 2014 p. 93 - Sustainment Strategy:
The F-35 weapon system sustainment strategy is based on the following tenets:
(1) the program office will serve as the Product Support Manager
(2) the long term Product Support Integrator is yet to be determined//
--but Lockheed has a lock on it
approved
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point.
ReplyDeleteDoubt it.
ReplyDeleteParalus, was referring to Don's fictitious interview between him and Butler a few threads back. Unless he came face to face with Butler's ghost or did the interview while Butler was still alive, I'd say that it doesn't hold water.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? This sounds like more bear-shit to me.
ReplyDeleteWhat does Putin/Russia have to gain by stirring up trouble in Poland? Arguably the best-equipped European country right now, and a NATO member to boot. You want a recipe for WWIII? There you go. It's a bear trap in waiting, and Putin isn't stupid enough to step into it. What are they going to bait him with? He's happy to let ethnic Russians in Ukraine suffer with not-quite-enough support for the greater good of Russia. So why would he be interested in what's happening to ethnic Russians in Poland?
Who benefits from a wider conflict? Not Russia. Only the US/NATO want to turn this Ukraine nightmare into a regional war.