 |
| photo via Immortal Today.com |
BAKU, September 12. /ITAR-TASS/. A family of new combat vehicles based on the universal platform Armata will be displayed at a Victory Parade in 2015, Oleg Siyenko, General Director of the Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) research and production corporation, told ITAR-TASS in an exclusive interview at the ADEX-2014 international exhibition of armaments.Interesting.
"All works are proceeding according to schedule. A whole family of armored vehicles based on the Armata platform will be displayed in a Victory Parade next year," Siyenko said.
I thought this thing was pure vapor ware. I'll be keeping an eye on this. Hopefully someone that reads this blog will be able to get some pics of the thing so we can get a look at its armor, layout, weapons fit etc...
Yeah... they said that year ago that new tank will be presented on parade in 2014. There is some serious problem with that machine if they move presentation from year to year.
ReplyDeleteiirc, only the Typhoon MRAPs were to appear in the 2014 parade
DeleteThey've been hinting at reveals at the RAE 2013 as well. It's all teasing.
Deleteit will be interesting to see what they do considering we've been watching Russian tanks blow up for 25 years. (Desert Storm, OIF, Syria, Chechenya, Syria). I'd like to see what the Russians will do to boost the defenses./survivability of their tanks and APCs
Tanks are an complex system so its not unusual to see delays especially if the piece is actually blank sheet of paper design ,how many of those were developed world wide in last 20 years.
DeleteAs for tanks blowing up we have seen fair share of western tanks go up in smoke in Iraq ,but we can see how much depends of the operators ,Iraqi army lost a bunch to guys in flipflops(isis) .
In last 20 years... Type 10 (Japan), K2 (South Korea), C1 Ariete (Italy), Challenger 2 (Great Britain), Al-Khalid (Pakistan). I would add Altay but he enter service in next year.
DeleteSo it's pretty large group mister, pretty large.
A lot is always made of Abrams blowing up, the key is what happens after a hit, does the turret and turret crew get blown off? Does the TC get ejected? Does the vehicle immidealtly brew up and burn?
DeleteDoes the ammo cook off instantly.
Yes, an Abrams can get M killed, W killed and even K killed, yet the crew almost every time survive.
That is the measure of an Armored Tank, the tank can be replaced in hours, maybe days yet it takes two years to train a crew.
As an old Anti tank assault man I can tell you, the crew is the most dangerous part of a tank, if you stop one, and the crew bails out they are hunted relentlessly, ruthlessly and K killed with no mercy.
Crew survival is what sets the Abrams apart from the rest of the worlds tanks.
If it can be seen, it can be hit, if it can be hit it can be killed.
"SEEK-STRIKE-DESTROY"
------------------
This tank looks cool, looks all bad ass the true test will be combat and I bet the Russian's have studied the Abrams well, so that crew survival is paramount and will be every bit as robust as the Abrams is.
It sure is a purty tank though!
The tank was reported to be presented at the parade 2015 not 14. And definitely no Armata on the photo.
DeleteCorrection: on the picture.
Deletei wonder if it's going to be new, from scratch or just a heavily modified T-72, as T-72 itself was
ReplyDeletePict above shows a Black eagle not Armata , Armata is supposed to be designed from scratch but in the same 45 tone class but the wierd thing is its supposed to form the base for family of vehicles , i assume just a chassis for SPG and some AAA/SAM piece and not for an APC like Merkava
ReplyDeletehttp://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm
;)
ReplyDeletehttps://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/557358_257502194369599_1716679644_n.jpg
As the goal is a medium battle tank like it was for past 50 years ,unmaned turret and c man creew in the hull seems the only option to really make a difference in protection levels. http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_pictures.html
ReplyDeleteYou know that whole unmanned turret stuff is debateble. A lot debateble.
ReplyDeleteI mean unmanned tank turret not thoose heavy MGs/ 20 or 30 mm cannon turrets.
DeleteActually no big deal once you have a reliable autoloader. ,Ruskies built many different autoloaders and also a MBT unmaned turret or two with the Object 195 that sported a huge 152mm anti tank gun ,this one had a carusel type loader ,but its more likely that they chose a turet mounted magazine like on the Black eagle
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-0teul0VAM
Well auto-loader turrets are good on experimental ranges. But so far no major power has risked to trust them in a large scale series of vehicles.
DeleteSome how it seems more likely that you can design a multi million dollar anti-tank vehicle equiped with missiles. But for some reason they do not trust that much of the fully automated autoloader in a tank.
Autoloaders are standard for past 50 or so years on russian tanks ,same goes for IFVs and off course naval turrets .
DeleteI'm thinking next generation tanks will have a very small unmanned turret and rely on vertical launch missile cells, The crew safely wrapped in an armored barrel inside the chassis.
DeleteBut do they still will be tanks Zebra, or just armored MLRS?
DeleteMissiles are slow and expensive ,slow means they can be intercepted ,any guidance can be interupted . On the other hand hypersonic APFSDS is almost immposible to stop by anything but a thick enough slab of armor and now days some off the more sophisticated ERA of Ukrainian design.
Delete"debatable" as in bullshit
Deleteunmanned turrets are conceptually flawed in every conceivable way, to include crew safety, the very reason for its creation to begin with.
where to even begin?
The Russians experimented with them, as has the United States, and they were met with the same disappointment, failure, and realization that they create a myriad of new problems.
The new tank wont have a unmanned turret im willing to bet, despite much speculation otherwise.
"Actually no big deal once you have a reliable autoloader"
DeleteThere really is no such thing.
Anytime you introduce a new deal of mechanical complexity for the supposed advantage of one less man (which is bullshit anyways), you open up new doors for mechanical failures. Autoloaders are obviously flawed in this regard.
No autoloader will be as reliable or fast as a well trained, thinking human. And the human can help with additional duty stations as well and takes up less space than a autoloader. That is a value of itself that automatically blows autoloaders out of the water.
The Russians (soviets then) have always had a fascination with them for whatever reason. I think they're bullshit.
Auto loaders are faster than hand loading especially once you are loading heavy 120-125mm rounds that in some cases have separate powder charge(challenger) .Reason Russians vent for all autoloaders is space=protection as 4th member requires cca 5 tons of armor and Russian tanks are far from poorelly protected. Its just that they see most combat so suffer most loses,most western designs have never seen combat even fewer faced modern ATGMs . Yust have a look at what Israel added in terms of armor to much of their fleet ,that never faces a tank but has to handle ATGMs ,this tanks are all past 60 tons and some look like they cobled together some parts from the junkyard. trifecta of armor mobility fire power is definetly unbalanced there . One thing you have to consider is russians use what amouns to a medium battle tank , weight is an issue for them as they want to keep the tanks mobile on local infrastructure that in some case might not support 65 ton tanks.
DeleteJane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION
"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.
"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.
"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.
"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"
Great news.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to see what the Ruskis come up with.
Also, the idea to use the Armata chassis as a basis for many different combat vehicles is a great idea.
There is an old saying, If something is for everything, it's for nothing.
DeleteWhat are you babbling about ,tank chassis are regulary used for anything from SPG,AAA,SAM to MRLS ,because they have load capacity and good offroad preformance ,there is no compromise in that ,the hard part would be an IFV but that is a question of the general layout.Merkava makes it easy but .I wouldn' bet on heavy APC or IFV to become the norm ,they are simply too heavy and require to much logistical support.
DeleteEasy there or you will have a stroke. You only acknowledge the truth in old saying with your doubts of heavy APC or IFV... you see, it's not good for everything.
DeleteThey already have used the MTLB and BTR as chassis for different types of weapon systems and specialized vehicles, although those vehicles, being 1960s technolgy, are becoming long in the tooth and leave much to be desired in terms of protection (as learned in Chechnya and other conflicts). This will really be nothing new, other than newer chassis that theoretically would have superior attributes in mobility, modularity, and protection being more compatible with newer systems.
DeleteThere is also the Kurganets and Boomerang supposedly. And Kamaz trucks.
Before I heard of these programs, I was actually quite surprised they didn't adopt new base vehicle concepts a long time ago.
Looks like it was based off the T95 Black Eagle prototype. I'm excited to see this come out.
ReplyDeleteA new Russian Tank ?
ReplyDeleteAlright India.....out with your cheque Book.
If the Russians do come out with a Heavy APC version of Armata based on the lines of Merkava/Namer.....does that mean the Russians are more willing and able now to conduct urban heavy ops ? The Russians dont lack intellectual power that has learned a lot from their previous military campaigns in Cechnya and Georgia and their ongoing Ukraine campaign.....maybe this weapon represents their response to those learnings.
Or
This weapon goes like the T90.....the Russians order just enough to get production lines and international publicity going and make it an Export Tank. I am sure the CEO of Uralvagonzavod felt it like a slap across his face when the Russian Defence Departmemt told that the T90 is deffinatly not going to be our future MBT.
Anybody else note the different wheel pattern here ? Seven smaller diameter road wheels instead of the bigger 6 on a T90. I bet thats because they are using a different suspension system. Maybe one that allows them greater cross country speed and flanking ability ? Enough to match modern western designs ?
ReplyDeleteIf that happens the change in their logistical chain will be significant.
It's hard to tell what type of suspension it will use. There is not even a single picture of existing prototype or digital pic. Model that was shown some time ago on bad angle give more or less view of wheels that indeed are smaller and more numerous. But models have that flaw that they can change 1000 times. The chassis is probably based on Black Eagle prototype (that is shown on pic in article)... everything else, mystery.
DeleteRussians till now used a simple large wheel chassis of T72 or much more sophisticated and capable small wheel form of T64. T64 chassis is superior to ither T72 or T90 and even T80 both in terms of reliability , cross country mobility and weight and power wasted on the tracks
Deleteto mr.T
Delete@"T64 chassis is superior to ither T72 or T90 "@
OMG, who said this to you? I definitely desire to read proofs of the statement. T-64 is total and absolutely scrap in comparison with other our MBT. The reason has historical roots: Ukrainian soviet republic had mighty clan in soviet commy party, and they “always to pull the blanket over themself " - and they established separate tank school in Ukraine which needed to be unique to prove its own existence. They chose to be “high-tec”. The single obvious plus – is lower weight, I'm not sure about lower service costs, but it is well known facts that because of small wheels without rubber amortization this high-tec scrap has worst accuracy of the cannon, worst protection of sides and very easy to «take of shoes”. It is worst soviet MBT ever.
The T64 (and later T80), being centered around their immature technology, was a mess compared to the more robust and reliable T72 series.
DeleteThe powerplant was an absolute nightmare reliability wise, and there is a reason why vertical cylinder engines were never fielded again in other armies' tanks (and the british abandoned the concept after the problems from the chieftain's similar engine too). The T80 pretty much laid the credibility of gas turbines to rest as well (and the US persistence in using them is a defense industry welfare/jobs program)
Thats not even getting into the autoloader that was utterly dangerous to the crew and its abysmal reliability.
Or the vehicle's ridiculous cost compared to the T72 for no benefit whatsoever. Their performance in the very few battles (Chechnya) they were in was telling itself too. Of course, the Soviets already knew this before the wall came down, which is why they only produced it for 4 years and kept them from Afghanistan.
But it made western sovietologists soil themselves with fright, who perceived it as some kind of "super tank" as a justification for the continued spending on other systems of dubious usefulness. Afterall, "OMG super tank!!!"
@"OMG super tank!!!" @
Deletean implicit proof of high-tec scrap. dozens years ago some nameless Ukrainian engineer got money bonus because high-tec method of bonding. Now we watch results. Tanks to God this “method” didn't reach other soviet tank-making plants.
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1300/8003/original.jpg
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/armata_uzv_590.jpg
ReplyDeletehttp://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Armata_mbt590.jpg
http://giaoduc.net.vn/Uploaded/huuky/2012_08_27/Military_Tank_T-95_giaoduc.net.vn.jpg
I like these pictures, but im not sure how "accurate" they are of the T99. The Russians seem to be far more tight lipped about their new weapon systems than the west has been.
I cannot wait to see what it looks like alongside the other family of vehicles.
Cute graphic, I wonder why turret is so large and high?
DeleteThe funny thing is that the Russians are developing a modern MBT just when most western countries have closed down their production lines and pretty much said that you are stuck with this tank till atealst 2030. In the history of Tanks, I dont think that the western world has ever taken such a long break from either researching a new tank or producing them. The most that is happeing is upgradation of existing models. I dont see the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden etc. doing some proper genuine research and development into a new tank anytime soon. This will mean that since the early 1980's when the Abrams/Leopard2's first came out, it will be more than 4 decades before a new Tank comes from any nation mentioned here. My country included.
ReplyDeleteProblem with MBT in the west is who is going to buy it ,they have become so expensive that even countries like Germany and UK are downsizing their fleets to about 250 each ,that form some 2200+ each in the cold war. Developing something new for production of 250 would expensive. Russians are trying to do a generation leap now .Previous deigns were more or less evolutions of ither T64 or T72
DeleteShit tons of country's are buying those tanks, others develop own native constructions. The market for tanks are still active and open. The budget cuts don't mean that R&D in "western" nations of tanks tech stop dead.
DeleteNot only Russia, but Asian nations as well.
DeleteThe west is stuck in a delusional lala land where it believes armor and tracks are obsolete and high tech woo and stealth beat everything. That and that it can win wars against sophisticated enemies with minimal body counts.
A counter can be made to my above point by pointing out South Korean/Japanese/Turkish/Polish/Chinese/Indian tank projects but lets see them for what they really are- Dipping into the parts and accesorries bin of USA/Germany/Russia and then cherry picking already develpoed parts and incorporating them into designs that are only slightly adjusted for national preferences from already existing original Western/Russian designs. Only the Polish "Stealth" tank seems to be Original and new research.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that original as chassis is based on CV90. Rest, well... looks cool and all, but that's only a concept car. It's need to be shiny and cool.
DeleteInfo-infanterie and other russian viewers-
ReplyDeleteWill we see competetion between Uralvagonzavod and Nizhny Tagil design bureau's for the development of this tank or is there a single committee ?
to Sarabvir Singh
ReplyDelete@Uralvagonzavod and Nizhny Tagil @
It looks like you mean Uralvagonzavod and Omsk design bureau.
No competition I guess. Omsk bureau is a division of UVZ, and it means at least cooperation (and I guess it actually is) in design of Armata family. May be Omsk will share production of Armata - I never heard or read about this. There is a catch: Omsk producing specialization is modernization of T-80 and T-50 families. By the way, on the Solomon's pic above is "Black eagle" - prototype of deep T-80U modernization - a Omsk's creature too (dead at the moment). And It looks like Omsk will keep this line. T-55 modernization can be interesting for foreign customers. T-80 modernization is intersting for Russia - this type of tank is preferable for nothern regions.
UVZ - is a single leader of tank's production by now - and I guess it is for good - we are not so reach as Soviet Union was - to keep three MBT lines at once.
Info-Infanterie,
ReplyDeleteIs this Armata concept a private or in-house self funded effort by UVZ or is it a proper Govt. Funded effort ? I am asking because the T-90 went primarily as an export tank and this Armata could also go that way since from outside of Russia it seems more like a in-house research project rather than one which has the full backing of the Russian Govt. like say the Borei Class Submarine or the PAK-FA.
The Russian Govt. will only fund those products which are fully compliant with with their vision/doctrine as regards that weapon system. From this am i to understand that the Russian Govt. is open to Turret-Less tanks or what could possibly be a 50+ ton tank ?
Some of its more advertized features seem to be non-compliant with Russian practices regarding Tanks, could this be another export tank or just a technology demonstrator ?
@Is this Armata concept a private or in-house self funded effort by UVZ or is it a proper Govt. Funded effort ?@
ReplyDeleteproper Govt. Funded effort – it is more close to global program to renew our army at all. Three kinds of divisions (light, moderate and heavy), three kinds of battle platforms with interchangeable devices and equipment. The idea you can see on the pic below.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/965155/965155_original.jpg
@could also go that way since from outside of Russia@
No, at least in my standpoint. First it will go for internal needs. It looks like dozens years passed before Armata appears on internal market. I read that only Armata MBT should finally be a single MBT in Army. For transition period it will be T 90 and T 72 B3 too. All other MBT will be aside soon.
@to Turret-Less@ what do you mean?
@Some of its more advertized features seem to be non-compliant with Russian practices@
What do you mean?
@, could this be another export tank or just a technology demonstrator ?@
T-90 is not only export tank.
My mistake, I wanted to mention Un-Manned turrent not Turret-Less.
DeleteInfo, this Armata MBT is bein advertised as having an Un-Manned Turret with the crew being situated in some kind of an extra armored shell in the hull. From the models that you gave links to, it not only has a remote controlled machine gun but also a auto-cannon. The complete lack of commanders cupola, gunners hatch in all models seen everywhere on the internet is also an interesting feature.
From all the advanced systems the your Govt. wants to put in this tank and also have more protection, this tank looks like obvious to have 50+ tons weight.
All this makes me want to ask a vital question-
Governments only fund projects and systems which are fully compliant with doctrine and vision. Am I to believe that since this is a Govt. Funded Project that the Russian Armored Corps doctrine now calls for un-manned turrets and 50+ ton tanks ?
I dont think Russian Armored Corps will change to Un-Manned Turret Tanks so then is the future of Armata an Export Model or a Concept/Technology Demonstrator Tank ?
@as having an Un-Manned @
DeleteYes, reportedly it is. More of this, the turret should be “conditionally unmanned” - another words should be possibility for tankists to leave the “protection capsule” and fire directly “by hands”
@extra armored shell@
we call it “capsule”
@All this makes me want to ask a vital question-@
Dear Sarabvir Singh, why it is so vital to you?
@his tank looks like obvious to have 50+ tons weight .@
I beg to count weight of Armata when and if it became a “combatant tank”, not current images and little conditional models. It is not clear 2 or 3 members of crew, 120 or 150 mm cannon. Weight can be near 50 tons, all our tanks belongs to a middle class and all our logistic is designed for this limits, it looks we stay to keep this line. But I'm not sure anyway. Just wait))))
@I dont think Russian Armored Corps will change to Un-Manned Turret Tanks so then is the future of Armata an Export Model or a Concept/Technology Demonstrator Tank ? @
No. We prepare for death global battle – Armata suits strategic line of our new army (propaganda calls it “new view”). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT “Terminator” -is for market. It looks effective but doesn't suit to our new strategy which nevertheless still stands on our base fight principle – to get close and to have good-old eye-to-eye deal.
@Info-Infanterie,
ReplyDeleteIt is vital to me because the Indian Armored Corps has time and again modeled itself after the Soviets ever sice we got the T-55. The last big change in the armored corps came when tank crews reduced from 4 to 3 just because the Soviets said its better with an autoloader and that was pretty much all that was made available for us to buy internatiolally.
Even when our economy opened up and we started getting more accepted in the western defence world with the options of LeClerc, Leopard/Arjun etc. we still stuck with the T-90.
And its not just India whose armored philosohpy and doctrine are being influenced by the ex-soviets, there are many more nations who also do the same. Thats your captive market for tanks.
It is also vital to me because what you do, the Chinese copy. What the Chinese copy, the Pakistanis buy....or should I say Beg for Beijings charity for parity with India.