"According to preliminary reports, the new tank designated T-14 will be less radical and ambitious than the canceled ‘Object 195’ or T-95, it will weigh less, therefore, become more agile and will be more affordable, compared to its more ambitious predecessors. Additionally, the Kurganets-25 tracked armored vehicle provides high degree of commonality with the new Armata tank. The Kurganets-25 will evolve into various models, gradually replacing BMP and BMD and MT-LB and other types of tracked armored platforms.[8] The Kurganets-25 will have modular armor that can be upgraded for specific threats, be armed with a 2A42 30 mm autocannon, and have four Kornet-EM anti-tank guided missile launchers.[9]
The tank will have an unmanned, remotely controlled turret. It will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment. It is believed that this would eventually lead to the development of a fully robotic tank"
"Fears grow for missing AirAsia flight carrying 162 people after it 'crashes off coast of Indonesia'... as desperate search and rescue mission is suspended due to bad weather and fading light
- The AirAsia flight departed Indonesia early on Sunday morning - It was scheduled to land at Singapore's Changi Airport on Sunday morning - The Indonesian Ministry of Transportation said that the plane had contacted Jakarta Air Traffic Control at 6.12am, and lost contact at 6.17am - There were 155 passengers on board, and seven airline crew - Nationalities of the passengers and crew include Singaporean, Malaysian, French, British, South Korean, and Indonesian - Search and rescue operations are underway by Indonesian authorities - There are unconfirmed reports of a wreckage being spotted in the Java Sea, 100 miles away from where the planes was last tracked - Fishing boats and official vessels have been sent out by Indonesia's national search and rescue body from the closest port to where the plane was last tracked "
Could have been an Air France event, or a bomb, if the aircraft had to reach a certain alt to set it off. That Ferry is the real horror, dead in the water, with a list, sea state 6, 50 mph gale force winds and 58 f water temps. The main lifeboats are in the vehicle compartment which is burning so hot the decks are melting the shoes of the victims still aboard, last count 400 (+/-) the only lifeboat opreational left with 150 women and children. It has 200 vehicles aboard some semi's, magnesium cabs, diesel fuel, cars and trucks with aluminum engines carrying fuel, hell it's like a cargo of Thermite. The ship is supposed to have a fog foam system yet it has not been or could not be activated. Could be an accident but if you wanted to do a terror attack this would be the thing, main shipping lanes, constricted sea. ----------- Unmanned turrets are the future, just an armored and very slim RWS crew is hull mounted possibly three men.
We tested a modified Abrams hull with a remote control turret and came to conclusion that its a failed design. I do like that they put a 30mm cannon on the turret. Will be good againsts infantry. I would like to see the M230L mounted on the Abrams for the TC. I would replace the gunners coax with general dynamics new 338nm chambered machine gun LWMMG. From the looks of the T-14 it doesn't seem like it can do the hull down position like the rest of the T series.
this seems more like something a concept artist threw together based on the T95 and Blackeagle So I doubt we can count on it for hard details. as to a remote turret given the advances in Remote weapons stations Auto loaders and sensors I think I needs a second look Although A conventional tank like Abrams may not be the best point of development. Perhaps the Hull should be more like the Israeli Namer the crew in a armored capsule in the hull with entry and exit points that don't go near the turret like the rear hatch. the traditional "fighting space" of the turret turned over to more ammo, electronics and blow out panels
We have flirted around with remote turrets before and they weren't exactly promising. The problem is lack of spatial awareness because of the lack of human eyes on top. Unless we can replace human eyes with something more ideal in another 20 years.
I can agree with the firepower.
My ideal firepower on a tank would be that exactly caliber you mentioned, in 338, or perhaps a US-produced version of the 14.5mm KPV (fat chance), in a coax (loaded with HE-I). Then the same for a top-mounted auto cannon. Or the short barrel variant of the 25mm bushy. I have previously argued in favor of an automatic grenade launcher too. Whatever, anything better than 3x 7.62s.
All supplementing a variety of APFSDS, HE, and Missile munitions for the main gun.
the ammo still located under the gun in carousel for auto loader, or at least the known diagram showed that.. i wonder if the interior space are separated to protect the personell from ammo explosion..
@The crew is in an armored capsule but the ammo is still stored around the gun. @
More of this – reportedly it will be a hatch for emergency access from capsule to the gun house. And shells will be solid, not separated in two parts like soviet tanks – it increases chances to hit ammo. Other words – in this part survivability wasn't radically changed.
It is not official trailer. The main intrigue, IMHO – 2 men or 3 in crew. I waited till Angara started, so the next nails-biting issue for me – what will be shown one the Victory Parade 2015.
@Well I put my trust in to info' opinion. "Wet dream" in that case. @
I should add “Erotic Wet dream”. Bggg. Seriously speaking, I'm suspicious about all “Armata-flag-waivnig things.” This global project has a lot of advantages thing for our military, but looks like very similar to “F-35 epopee” - a huge “sawmill" for money mastering.
Look's like we all have that type of "project" in our home turf. We have that never ending thing in form of "Krab" mobile artillery system, almost 15 fucking years! We should already receive 120 ones and the "company" that was responsible to deliver a chassis was able to make... 5! and 4 did have such problems with many things (the biggest was cracks in armor) they were turn back by Army. Now finally our MoD that was not know for fast decisions said "fuck this" and break contract with the "Bumaru-Łabędy" and sing one with Samsung Techwin to deliver K9 chassis for Krabs. Of course Unions will and are protesting but fuck them!
@Look's like we all have that type of "project" in our home turf@ It always was and always be the main question is concrete military tasks to be resolved. It was a long peaceful period in Europe and EU-nations are relaxed some, lost some capabilities in technic and technology, because US Army and budget carry main burden. But peace is near to be cancelled – Ukraine was only beginning. I guess in new circumstances EU nation, including Polish, will pay greatly more attention to military procurement issues. We, in Russia (IMHO), have another leading problems – theft, peculations, red-tape, current rules are very comfortable for this. And this can turn all our global projects in dust. Anyway – practice will show.
@Samsung Techwin to deliver K9 chassis for Krabs@ So it was decided to refuse procurements of licensed Turkish production – and buy chassis directly in Korea? Pan, how many Crabs were made at the moment?
@So it was decided to refuse procurements of licensed Turkish production – and buy chassis directly in Korea? Pan, how many Crabs were made at the moment?
Turkish deal was only an rumor. We have in magazines waiting to put on chassis AS90 turrets with Nexeter 155 barrels, it would be an stupid thing (but it would not be a surprise) if they scrap that. So we only need a good chassis for them. Also the next batch of barrels will be made by Rheinmetall.
Including the prototypes the were build by Huta Stalowa Wola before production of chassis was grabbed Bumar-Łabendy... 8. They believe that now with K9 chassis they will be able to put in use those 120 to 2025. But I have my serious doubts...
Fuel Forward. Engines to the sides. Unmanned central armament well with blowout panels for the SEPARATED ammunition. Crew in the back in individual, armored, cabs. Variable payload space (VLS drone launcher for target spotting on CLGP, Infantry or C2 facility.
Make the turret well unmanned and universal so that it can mount a 40mm CT, an AD/AP (LTL) laser and a Masted Commo/Targeting head as well as the main 105mm gun.
That's right: 105mm. If you aren't crashing the frontal slope you don't need to do a 20MJ gun. You need to **LOFT** smart rounds over the local horizon with a topattack LOAL seeker and boosted /endgame/ to defeat APS.
By pushing the crew to the rear, you put THREE compartment walls: Glacis, Fuel Bunker/Forward Armament Well, Aft Armament Well as well as their own, self contained, armored cabs between them and any threats.
By putting a pair of 250-350HP engines in plenum spaces to either side of the main fighting space and using hybrid drives through an electric vetronics spine, you can idle in laager for 48+hrs, charging the batteries and keeping the tank cool or motor along at 40+mph on two engines. And the large, dead-air, volume protects you from IR observation even as the plenums themselves function as double-hull spaced armor.
Let NERA and APS be your principle defense against weapons up to 35mm.
I do believe in lightweight autocannon (on UGCV escorts), but not as scab mounts, holing the turret with ammo feeds and competing for internal volume on what should be as light a weight gun shield system as possible. Clean the entire upper deck and shape it for radar signature before coating with active IR camouflage tiles like Adaptiv or Black Fox.
The one thing you cannot get away from folks is that if the enemy can see you, he can kill you because the entire world now knows the importance of fire control and correctly toleranced sabot to getting accurate hits at range. Indeed, companies like Aselsan have made it their business to sell the basic kit to any and all.
The LOS fight is no longer winnable because the Western technical edge is _gone_. In sights. In Armor and in numeric disparities with likely opfors. We simply cannot (Airborne Dragon) get enough vehicles into the fight, fast enough, to protect a contested air or beachhead force.
What's more, we cannot afford to wait for a 'whites of their muzzle muzzle blast' moment when to engage because they will pull us one way and roll us up the other.
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TPzN1s9FQ
Plus This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THan1NkFakw
Plus This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNv04HC6VSc
Plus This (for standoff targeting, not 'kamikaze') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4
To give you an OTH capability to hit targets with either simple GPS/INS guidance + smart fuse (Static, AP) or Homing rounds. And make it a burst-fire autoloader so that MRSI round footprints can beat back any APS while the threat has to -SEE YOU-, through your stealth, to be able to kill you.
A high angle elevation capability + on-mount replenishable autoloader is the real reason to go unmanned in the turret. Not protection perse.
The one thing I like about this system is the reference to automation.
If you put out a screen of Wiesel type minitanks with DARPA type auto-nav ability to negotiate terrain features while remaining in basic proximity to the protected force, you can put your AC on those mounts and back it up with Javelin or CKEM to provide serious (high speed, low silhouette) capabilities sufficient to force the threat into dealing with the cav force while the main group backs off and shoots over-LOS in support.
The Key, for the Soviets as well as us, is to reconfigure their armored forces around maneuver fire teams that can hold the enemy at arms length while attriting him down to nothing on their own schedule rather than by how long it takes to get from the visual horizon to the ballistic overmatch point on armor (Sniper and LAHAT will beat M829A3 on this).
Cost will make the old style of mixed force infantry FP and supporting fires untenable within conventional force structures while the ability to engage from NLOS conditions will equate to an ability to reach in to support infantry in contact in the ONE area where they are superior: as the MOUT environment where exposing the tank to high elevation and buried threats, which APS may or may not take out in time, is unwise.
Smaller, Faster, Meaner, Leaner. But also more deployable and more persistent as a nuisance threat in high intensity ops, continually harassing CS/CSS and 2E forces moving up while hostaging such things as depots, bridge crossings, nuclear storage igloos and garrison structures so that the enemy can never get onto a warfooting.
Just because you can self-defend by holding ground does not mean you need to have a frontal condition of theater insert and logistics.
Perhaps most importantly, if you design a common hull in a 20-25 ton class, you can build your replacement force around it to achieve economies of scale without worrying too much about when specific variants will nock into the production string as a function of costs or development status. The turret well is universal. The vetronics electrical spine is universal, the environment condition is controlled.with powerful onboard HVAC. Build to your highest requirement and then plug'n'play from there. IFV, ADV, Tank, C2 vehicle. All on one hull.
Vehicle needs to be heavy, too withstand high-velo 'super' munitions such as super40 in CTA40mm, which is equivalent to 60mm round in terms of penetration. A >40mm CTA cannon would probably destroy everything under a T72 in terms of armour, and Active Protection Systems aren't going to stop many rounds of that size.
Russia knows this, they have a 57mm cannon with high penetration also. Drones can also be shot down and depleted or jammed, and missiles intercepted.
Solomon had in a past post put up the concept of the Ukrainian future MBT which i think was more realistic than this one here. The last time a mainstream army attached 20-30mm cannons on full production tanks it was the AMX-30. I dont think it was a success. Too much money and resources and engineering and maintenance and logistics going on to 2 weapons here- the cannon and the gatling gun that have very niche uses and you would not want them on your tanks all the time. If they can be dismantled and reasambled quickly (Which i am sure they cant because of stabilizers, power points, gears, gyros etc.) then it will be better.
In any armored advance, that 30MM will have little utility as you will face enemy tanks first and not enemy APC's/IFV's who will be advancing behind the phalanx of armor. In urban settings, that 30mm cannon will also be of niche use as you will need to move in a 50+ton platform ripping our roads and structures to get that 30mm into action. Much better to get a 20 ton BMP or even a Tunguska into that scanario.
Plus, I feel those twin cannons sticking out from the sides are only going to interfere with the ERA panels. An example of an exposed co-axial/support machine gun can be seen on the Merkava tank.
Any IDF viewers here would like to share their experiences with such an exposed weaponry ?
Does the machine gun loose alignment or gets damaged a lot when exposed to random shrapnel and protective ERA panels gowing off ?
High calliber Parallel-axialy mounted cannons is not new, strv-2000 proposed a 40mm cannon mounted that way to deal with hordes of lightly armoured soviet vehicles while preserving the larger rounds for their many tanks. Abrams and AMX both had provision for such cannons but later lost support.
Such cannons allow you too preserve the munitions for your main cannon while taking out lightly armoured vehicles and/or anti-tank or crew-mounted weapon squads at long ranges, quickly and in one or two rounds.
Munitions have advanced such that a super40 round is pretty much capable of knocking out anything smaller than a late-era soviet tank (effectively anything under T-72) since most of the older tanks have been transfered to 3rd world countries so that dictators have something that goes 'boom'.
A small accurate burst from a stabalised 30mm+ cannon with HE or Airburst rounds will take out quiet a few infantry.
A 40mm is certainly a good weapon but still a bit too alternative/niche for a Tank. A tank in a average scenario will only get to target APC/IFV's when the enemies frontal Tank Screen is done and dusted with. And when enemy tank screen is destroyed, you wont find many IFV/APC's sticking around there for a fight. So the need to conserve main gun ammo for firing first at APC's and then at Tanks is not required.
The AMX30 tried its level best take out choppers from its 20mm as did the MBT70 (not sure about the MBT70) but that failed.
Against AT squads firing Kornets, Javelins and SPIKE's from concealed places or from the back of trucks and jeeps, then these auto cannons are amazing. Seeing that I hate AT weapons from the bottom of my heart.....I will prefer to give them nothing lesser than the Main Gun.
Most nations that field tanks do so in combined arm units, where tracked IFVs, potentially with anti-tank missiles and large cannons accompany the tanks carrying the infantry for the urban fight. Those lighter vehicles, and any infantry squads or soft-skin vehicles/battle-taxis do not require scarce main-cannon rounds. But require something >12.5mm.
Furthermore you may not have the luxury of having any sort of numerical parity, you could be heavily outnumbered, even just in a few areas, under such circumstances you can run out of munitions. Additionally such a cannon is definitely more effective against helicopters and drones and whatnot than the 12.5mm cannon. FYI 20mm will not take out cannon, 30mm+ required for that.
Bassically equipping this intermediate caliber weapon increases the stowed kills of the MBT before the MBT needs to be reloaded. And the 30mm+ HE/Air-burst munitions are very effective against infantry...
Another opposition I have on the triple turret is that at one time only 1 gun can be used and while using that particular gun, the other guns cannot be trailed and stabalized on their own primary targets. Having a stabilized 30/40mm is good only if you are not sacrificing the 120's ability to trail its target. And in the heat of battle, no one is going to purposefulyl shift from 120 to 30 and then again back to 120 for hard/soft/hard targets. 1 gunner 1 gun 1 target at any 1 point of time.
For the small amout of Missile carrying IFVs that will actually accompany an enemy tank advance, justifying production,maitenance and deployment of 5-6000 of such systems is not feasible not desired. A 3 man tank crew and an armored battalion being given a tank that has not 1 but 3 stabalized cannons that need all their attention.
The logistical footpint of a tank that now needs 120mm ammo, 30/40mm ammo, additional barrels for gatling guns, extra barrels overall, more machinery, more weight, more space for all that ammo. Its just not worth it. Its a niche product. Always has been otherwise every tank would have them by now.
@Another opposition I have on the triple turret is that at one time only 1 gun can be used and while using that particular gun, the other guns cannot be trailed and stabalized on their own primary targets.@
At my take the "triple turret" will not be realized in reality. Looks cool but not for practice.
Solomon a couple of months back did a same post like this. A prototype of a tank. It was by a Ukrainian company outlining their version of a future Ukrainian Tank. I think if you type in Ukraine MBT in the seach here you will be able to find the post.
Yeah the triple turret design is a poor design, the cannon needs to be mounted inside the turret itself and fully stabilized or else it is useless. This looks like fan-art to me, or the developers have lost their minds. STRV2000 is an example of a much better layout for including a secondary cannon than this or the AMX.
You can't really put the turret on the top, you need that area for hatches and sensors and ADS, and your small-arms RWS with 360degree fire arc, etc..etc.. The most practical place to mount it is along-side the main cannon, inside the turret. Switching between munitions is easy, just give them a joystick with multiple buttons.
In reality it imposes no additional complication for logistics if they are being operated alongside tracked IFVs with the same calliber cannon, which is what you would do. And it stillI INCREASES the stowed number of potential kills. You can't argue against that, more stowed kills is better.
You don't need a 120mm round to take out infantry when you can burst fire 3+ 40mm rounds out just as far and kill everything within 5m+ radius of each round, and have like 99% probability of kill on ATGM squad. Using the 120mm in that situation is just a waste. Or when A single round is 100% enough to take out a light vehicle.
Naah man, I still think it that while in a theoritical paper and simulation exercise it all makes sense but on the ground, this thing will be too complicated to maintain for its limited use and will be mucho expensivo through out its life. Maybe its the way the Russian inspired armored forces out there are trained to love simplicity which is why I am speaking like this.
Its never about the obvious in any weapon system. What we see here is the cannon and its ammo and it being stabalized. What we are nto seeign here is that its not not about the ammo but about how that ammo will be stored in the vehicle. Stowed away or ready to use. In a remote turret it will only be ready to use. Imagine having 3 different assembly lines for 3 different guns all in the same turret filled with ready to use ammo. That is extremely complicated. Sure...it can be done...the same way a Ferrai can be built. But anything above 10 million a tank and you are looking at a tank version of JSF. Already the Arjun Mk2 in India is priced at +8 Million dollars.
More on the concept of tanks co-carrying a light cannon for use in urban environments. As mentioned above, in emergencies the tank can be used with complete disregard to property and infrastructure. But in lower tempo operations and later stages of pacification in urban areas.....continued usage of heavy tanks with metal tracks in low maneouver areas is a bad idea.
The underground resistance will also take benefit if this and will purposefully relocate to the "old city" areas. And people from third world/developing countries know full well what "old city" means. An area jam packed to the limit with people living in close quarters with small ittle gulleys and alley ways interconnecting them all where low hung illegal powerlines add to the confusion. Concrete slums.
In this kind of a scenario just imagine using a tank. Or imagine getting a tank to that troublesome area. You can either drive the tank to that area of use a Tatra Tank Transporter.
Tatra's are not avaiable to every armored squadron at any given point of time and have to be requisitioned. Which causes delays. Then comes the process of loading up the tank and shacking it in. Then comes the driving part. Then comes the unloading near the troublesome spot part. And then....finally comes the figting part.
Much better to get BMP with good support from Infantry. And if you are one of those lucky ones who have a AD battalion nearby in case of emergency.....wait till you see the Tunguska in action. The first time i saw it fire i got reminded of a cheese being grated through to make a nice dish. A nice dish of whooopass.
Comedy aside, i do feel that those cannons will be left out from any final production design.
Well I would cover the tanks in ERA and if possible equip ADS, put in rounds like XM1028 (shot/pellet round) and go in with infantry and CAS, encircle them and clear the place out. I would prefer flamethrowers too, but they are a bit unpopular nowadays. Possibly 'sanitize' the areas of heavy resistance with large-scale air-strikes (the type you see the israelis do that take down entire 12+ Story concrete apartments), or thermobaric weapons.
Tanks with GoPro's  Attack Encircled Rebels in Jobar Syria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLK_Stj6h24
based on reports, it's the Same gun as the T90. They have looked into a new cannon in the 152mm on the T95 concept but by all reports they fell back to the 2A46 125 mm gun they have used since T64. Right now it seems that the main gun of the Tank has stabilized 120mm 44-55cal in the west and 125mm 51cal for the East. Although Both have now tested larger guns neither seems interested in making the move.
And for good reason too. No one has made the first move because these guns look good enough to knock out each others tanks just fine. Though i suspect that the Russians would be more eager to get a successor to their 2A46 than the West for their Rhienmetall varients.
there are possibilities outside of the 140mm. For example the Us and South Koreans are both know to be working or have worked on ETC technologies which may mean Cleaner propellant burns, higher muzzle velocities and alternative propellants, but that's still down the line right now the biggest earth movers of the tank therefore are propulsion in the form of more electric hybrid less mechanical on a active suspension, More automated operation in the form of Remote turrets like the CROWS a fully automated turret then being the big step up, Active protection against ATGMs and RPG,s and Signature mitigation stealth for a tank may not be as stealthy as a fighter and would likely be combined with conventional armor and other defences but any edge on the battle field is a good edge.
They did test it with a manual loader... poor guy. on both the Abrams and Leopard 2 they intended to produce a Autoloader but I don't think they ever built one. in the end the Cost benefit and end of the cold war pointed against the move. Instead everything seems to show a trend to reducing the weight of the tank and Gun.
There have been several autoloader prototypes for the Abrams. They include the TTB, CATTB and the Thumper prototypes. They are well worth a good google search.
Trying some guesswork on the armaments, it looks like a 2A46/variant 125mm gun (some have suggested it will be bigger, but im doubtful of this. The Russians will take the route with more capable tube-launched ATGM, which is why the previously prototyped 152mm mounted on a T80 chassis was seen as a unnecessary complication), 12.7mm YAKB minigun, and a variant of the Shipunov 30mm auto cannon.
Im sure a remote system is mounted on top to accommodate a Kord 12.7mm or anything else like the "BTR" version of this vehicle is supposed to.
There is no need to mount three high-caliber guns on Armata MBT (IMHO). Armata MBT should take place of weapon for global war – somewhat about assault tank in conditions on nuke’s usage, especially with keeping in mind declared possibility to change 120mm for 152 mm (another word achieving possibility to launch nuke in artillery shell basement). For performance anti-rebels operations are designed another vehicles on Armata platform, like this flame-throwing support vehicle – new addition of BMP concept. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jp7nbD-MTxo/UhXKGB2DfaI/AAAAAAAAF_w/j27VlhJcyM0/s1600/Scan0002.jpg Topic-starting Vid is nothing but an impressive image.
unmanned turret huh ?
ReplyDelete"According to preliminary reports, the new tank designated T-14 will be less radical and ambitious than the canceled ‘Object 195’ or T-95, it will weigh less, therefore, become more agile and will be more affordable, compared to its more ambitious predecessors. Additionally, the Kurganets-25 tracked armored vehicle provides high degree of commonality with the new Armata tank. The Kurganets-25 will evolve into various models, gradually replacing BMP and BMD and MT-LB and other types of tracked armored platforms.[8] The Kurganets-25 will have modular armor that can be upgraded for specific threats, be armed with a 2A42 30 mm autocannon, and have four Kornet-EM anti-tank guided missile launchers.[9]
The tank will have an unmanned, remotely controlled turret. It will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment. It is believed that this would eventually lead to the development of a fully robotic tank"
off topic.. another bad news considering MH370 still missing..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888862/AirAsia-flight-Indonesia-Singapore-loses-contact-air-traffic-control.html
"Fears grow for missing AirAsia flight carrying 162 people after it 'crashes off coast of Indonesia'... as desperate search and rescue mission is suspended due to bad weather and fading light
- The AirAsia flight departed Indonesia early on Sunday morning
- It was scheduled to land at Singapore's Changi Airport on Sunday morning
- The Indonesian Ministry of Transportation said that the plane had contacted Jakarta Air Traffic Control at 6.12am, and lost contact at 6.17am
- There were 155 passengers on board, and seven airline crew
- Nationalities of the passengers and crew include Singaporean, Malaysian, French, British, South Korean, and Indonesian
- Search and rescue operations are underway by Indonesian authorities
- There are unconfirmed reports of a wreckage being spotted in the Java Sea, 100 miles away from where the planes was last tracked
- Fishing boats and official vessels have been sent out by Indonesia's national search and rescue body from the closest port to where the plane was last tracked "
i've been monitoring that all morning. Indonesia better hope that terrorist ties are a part of this or else they're in serious trouble.
DeleteCould have been an Air France event, or a bomb, if the aircraft had to reach a certain alt to set it off.
DeleteThat Ferry is the real horror, dead in the water, with a list, sea state 6, 50 mph gale force winds and 58 f water temps. The main lifeboats are in the vehicle compartment which is burning so hot the decks are melting the shoes of the victims still aboard, last count 400 (+/-) the only lifeboat opreational left with 150 women and children.
It has 200 vehicles aboard some semi's, magnesium cabs, diesel fuel, cars and trucks with aluminum engines carrying fuel, hell it's like a cargo of Thermite.
The ship is supposed to have a fog foam system yet it has not been or could not be activated.
Could be an accident but if you wanted to do a terror attack this would be the thing, main shipping lanes, constricted sea.
-----------
Unmanned turrets are the future, just an armored and very slim RWS crew is hull mounted possibly three men.
We tested a modified Abrams hull with a remote control turret and came to conclusion that its a failed design. I do like that they put a 30mm cannon on the turret. Will be good againsts infantry. I would like to see the M230L mounted on the Abrams for the TC. I would replace the gunners coax with general dynamics new 338nm chambered machine gun LWMMG. From the looks of the T-14 it doesn't seem like it can do the hull down position like the rest of the T series.
ReplyDeletethis seems more like something a concept artist threw together based on the T95 and Blackeagle So I doubt we can count on it for hard details. as to a remote turret given the advances in Remote weapons stations Auto loaders and sensors I think I needs a second look Although A conventional tank like Abrams may not be the best point of development. Perhaps the Hull should be more like the Israeli Namer the crew in a armored capsule in the hull with entry and exit points that don't go near the turret like the rear hatch. the traditional "fighting space" of the turret turned over to more ammo, electronics and blow out panels
DeleteThe Modified Abrams had a armored capsule.
DeleteWe have flirted around with remote turrets before and they weren't exactly promising. The problem is lack of spatial awareness because of the lack of human eyes on top. Unless we can replace human eyes with something more ideal in another 20 years.
DeleteI can agree with the firepower.
My ideal firepower on a tank would be that exactly caliber you mentioned, in 338, or perhaps a US-produced version of the 14.5mm KPV (fat chance), in a coax (loaded with HE-I). Then the same for a top-mounted auto cannon. Or the short barrel variant of the 25mm bushy. I have previously argued in favor of an automatic grenade launcher too. Whatever, anything better than 3x 7.62s.
All supplementing a variety of APFSDS, HE, and Missile munitions for the main gun.
the ammo still located under the gun in carousel for auto loader, or at least the known diagram showed that.. i wonder if the interior space are separated to protect the personell from ammo explosion..
ReplyDeleteThe crew is in an armored capsule but the ammo is still stored around the gun.
Delete@The crew is in an armored capsule but the ammo is still stored around the gun. @
DeleteMore of this – reportedly it will be a hatch for emergency access from capsule to the gun house. And shells will be solid, not separated in two parts like soviet tanks – it increases chances to hit ammo. Other words – in this part survivability wasn't radically changed.
But... this is an official thing or another wet dream.
ReplyDeleteIt is not official trailer. The main intrigue, IMHO – 2 men or 3 in crew. I waited till Angara started, so the next nails-biting issue for me – what will be shown one the Victory Parade 2015.
ReplyDeleteWell I put my trust in to info' opinion. "Wet dream" in that case.
Delete@Well I put my trust in to info' opinion. "Wet dream" in that case. @
DeleteI should add “Erotic Wet dream”. Bggg. Seriously speaking, I'm suspicious about all “Armata-flag-waivnig things.” This global project has a lot of advantages thing for our military, but looks like very similar to “F-35 epopee” - a huge “sawmill" for money mastering.
Look's like we all have that type of "project" in our home turf. We have that never ending thing in form of "Krab" mobile artillery system, almost 15 fucking years! We should already receive 120 ones and the "company" that was responsible to deliver a chassis was able to make... 5! and 4 did have such problems with many things (the biggest was cracks in armor) they were turn back by Army. Now finally our MoD that was not know for fast decisions said "fuck this" and break contract with the "Bumaru-Łabędy" and sing one with Samsung Techwin to deliver K9 chassis for Krabs. Of course Unions will and are protesting but fuck them!
Delete@Look's like we all have that type of "project" in our home turf@
DeleteIt always was and always be the main question is concrete military tasks to be resolved. It was a long peaceful period in Europe and EU-nations are relaxed some, lost some capabilities in technic and technology, because US Army and budget carry main burden. But peace is near to be cancelled – Ukraine was only beginning. I guess in new circumstances EU nation, including Polish, will pay greatly more attention to military procurement issues.
We, in Russia (IMHO), have another leading problems – theft, peculations, red-tape, current rules are very comfortable for this. And this can turn all our global projects in dust. Anyway – practice will show.
@Samsung Techwin to deliver K9 chassis for Krabs@
So it was decided to refuse procurements of licensed Turkish production – and buy chassis directly in Korea? Pan, how many Crabs were made at the moment?
@So it was decided to refuse procurements of licensed Turkish production – and buy chassis directly in Korea? Pan, how many Crabs were made at the moment?
DeleteTurkish deal was only an rumor. We have in magazines waiting to put on chassis AS90 turrets with Nexeter 155 barrels, it would be an stupid thing (but it would not be a surprise) if they scrap that. So we only need a good chassis for them. Also the next batch of barrels will be made by Rheinmetall.
Including the prototypes the were build by Huta Stalowa Wola before production of chassis was grabbed Bumar-Łabendy... 8. They believe that now with K9 chassis they will be able to put in use those 120 to 2025. But I have my serious doubts...
This is just the fanboy vid of the Armata concept presented some years ago so i highly doubt it will look much like that.
ReplyDeleteFuel Forward. Engines to the sides. Unmanned central armament well with blowout panels for the SEPARATED ammunition. Crew in the back in individual, armored, cabs. Variable payload space (VLS drone launcher for target spotting on CLGP, Infantry or C2 facility.
ReplyDeleteMake the turret well unmanned and universal so that it can mount a 40mm CT, an AD/AP (LTL) laser and a Masted Commo/Targeting head as well as the main 105mm gun.
That's right: 105mm. If you aren't crashing the frontal slope you don't need to do a 20MJ gun. You need to **LOFT** smart rounds over the local horizon with a topattack LOAL seeker and boosted /endgame/ to defeat APS.
By pushing the crew to the rear, you put THREE compartment walls: Glacis, Fuel Bunker/Forward Armament Well, Aft Armament Well as well as their own, self contained, armored cabs between them and any threats.
By putting a pair of 250-350HP engines in plenum spaces to either side of the main fighting space and using hybrid drives through an electric vetronics spine, you can idle in laager for 48+hrs, charging the batteries and keeping the tank cool or motor along at 40+mph on two engines. And the large, dead-air, volume protects you from IR observation even as the plenums themselves function as double-hull spaced armor.
Let NERA and APS be your principle defense against weapons up to 35mm.
I do believe in lightweight autocannon (on UGCV escorts), but not as scab mounts, holing the turret with ammo feeds and competing for internal volume on what should be as light a weight gun shield system as possible. Clean the entire upper deck and shape it for radar signature before coating with active IR camouflage tiles like Adaptiv or Black Fox.
The one thing you cannot get away from folks is that if the enemy can see you, he can kill you because the entire world now knows the importance of fire control and correctly toleranced sabot to getting accurate hits at range. Indeed, companies like Aselsan have made it their business to sell the basic kit to any and all.
The LOS fight is no longer winnable because the Western technical edge is _gone_. In sights. In Armor and in numeric disparities with likely opfors. We simply cannot (Airborne Dragon) get enough vehicles into the fight, fast enough, to protect a contested air or beachhead force.
What's more, we cannot afford to wait for a 'whites of their muzzle muzzle blast' moment when to engage because they will pull us one way and roll us up the other.
DeleteThis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TPzN1s9FQ
Plus This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THan1NkFakw
Plus This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNv04HC6VSc
Plus This (for standoff targeting, not 'kamikaze')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4
To give you an OTH capability to hit targets with either simple GPS/INS guidance + smart fuse (Static, AP) or Homing rounds. And make it a burst-fire autoloader so that MRSI round footprints can beat back any APS while the threat has to -SEE YOU-, through your stealth, to be able to kill you.
A high angle elevation capability + on-mount replenishable autoloader is the real reason to go unmanned in the turret. Not protection perse.
The one thing I like about this system is the reference to automation.
If you put out a screen of Wiesel type minitanks with DARPA type auto-nav ability to negotiate terrain features while remaining in basic proximity to the protected force, you can put your AC on those mounts and back it up with Javelin or CKEM to provide serious (high speed, low silhouette) capabilities sufficient to force the threat into dealing with the cav force while the main group backs off and shoots over-LOS in support.
Like these-
http://www.automopedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/800px-lockheed_martin_mule.jpg
http://i799.photobucket.com/albums/yy279/The_terran_empire/arma3_ugv.jpg
https://qb4fsq.dm1.livefilestore.com/y1pj77Gq4FHGQX2fwBUL541LpnEwlM76Wk6jGCDeJfOeLW71BUWkHPM2sJOoVhzThWspumxHyRZuU2SZgtO-65VZbwqxo1FjZUd/rus_ugv1.jpg
The Key, for the Soviets as well as us, is to reconfigure their armored forces around maneuver fire teams that can hold the enemy at arms length while attriting him down to nothing on their own schedule rather than by how long it takes to get from the visual horizon to the ballistic overmatch point on armor (Sniper and LAHAT will beat M829A3 on this).
Cost will make the old style of mixed force infantry FP and supporting fires untenable within conventional force structures while the ability to engage from NLOS conditions will equate to an ability to reach in to support infantry in contact in the ONE area where they are superior: as the MOUT environment where exposing the tank to high elevation and buried threats, which APS may or may not take out in time, is unwise.
Smaller, Faster, Meaner, Leaner. But also more deployable and more persistent as a nuisance threat in high intensity ops, continually harassing CS/CSS and 2E forces moving up while hostaging such things as depots, bridge crossings, nuclear storage igloos and garrison structures so that the enemy can never get onto a warfooting.
Just because you can self-defend by holding ground does not mean you need to have a frontal condition of theater insert and logistics.
Perhaps most importantly, if you design a common hull in a 20-25 ton class, you can build your replacement force around it to achieve economies of scale without worrying too much about when specific variants will nock into the production string as a function of costs or development status. The turret well is universal. The vetronics electrical spine is universal, the environment condition is controlled.with powerful onboard HVAC. Build to your highest requirement and then plug'n'play from there. IFV, ADV, Tank, C2 vehicle. All on one hull.
Vehicle needs to be heavy, too withstand high-velo 'super' munitions such as super40 in CTA40mm, which is equivalent to 60mm round in terms of penetration. A >40mm CTA cannon would probably destroy everything under a T72 in terms of armour, and Active Protection Systems aren't going to stop many rounds of that size.
DeleteRussia knows this, they have a 57mm cannon with high penetration also. Drones can also be shot down and depleted or jammed, and missiles intercepted.
@Russia knows this,@
Deletelooks like to be so. Rumors go that developed new Russian ERA will answer this summon.
Solomon had in a past post put up the concept of the Ukrainian future MBT which i think was more realistic than this one here. The last time a mainstream army attached 20-30mm cannons on full production tanks it was the AMX-30. I dont think it was a success. Too much money and resources and engineering and maintenance and logistics going on to 2 weapons here- the cannon and the gatling gun that have very niche uses and you would not want them on your tanks all the time. If they can be dismantled and reasambled quickly (Which i am sure they cant because of stabilizers, power points, gears, gyros etc.) then it will be better.
ReplyDeleteIn any armored advance, that 30MM will have little utility as you will face enemy tanks first and not enemy APC's/IFV's who will be advancing behind the phalanx of armor. In urban settings, that 30mm cannon will also be of niche use as you will need to move in a 50+ton platform ripping our roads and structures to get that 30mm into action. Much better to get a 20 ton BMP or even a Tunguska into that scanario.
Plus, I feel those twin cannons sticking out from the sides are only going to interfere with the ERA panels. An example of an exposed co-axial/support machine gun can be seen on the Merkava tank.
DeleteAny IDF viewers here would like to share their experiences with such an exposed weaponry ?
Does the machine gun loose alignment or gets damaged a lot when exposed to random shrapnel and protective ERA panels gowing off ?
High calliber Parallel-axialy mounted cannons is not new, strv-2000 proposed a 40mm cannon mounted that way to deal with hordes of lightly armoured soviet vehicles while preserving the larger rounds for their many tanks. Abrams and AMX both had provision for such cannons but later lost support.
DeleteSuch cannons allow you too preserve the munitions for your main cannon while taking out lightly armoured vehicles and/or anti-tank or crew-mounted weapon squads at long ranges, quickly and in one or two rounds.
Munitions have advanced such that a super40 round is pretty much capable of knocking out anything smaller than a late-era soviet tank (effectively anything under T-72) since most of the older tanks have been transfered to 3rd world countries so that dictators have something that goes 'boom'.
A small accurate burst from a stabalised 30mm+ cannon with HE or Airburst rounds will take out quiet a few infantry.
A 40mm is certainly a good weapon but still a bit too alternative/niche for a Tank. A tank in a average scenario will only get to target APC/IFV's when the enemies frontal Tank Screen is done and dusted with. And when enemy tank screen is destroyed, you wont find many IFV/APC's sticking around there for a fight. So the need to conserve main gun ammo for firing first at APC's and then at Tanks is not required.
DeleteThe AMX30 tried its level best take out choppers from its 20mm as did the MBT70 (not sure about the MBT70) but that failed.
Against AT squads firing Kornets, Javelins and SPIKE's from concealed places or from the back of trucks and jeeps, then these auto cannons are amazing. Seeing that I hate AT weapons from the bottom of my heart.....I will prefer to give them nothing lesser than the Main Gun.
Most nations that field tanks do so in combined arm units, where tracked IFVs, potentially with anti-tank missiles and large cannons accompany the tanks carrying the infantry for the urban fight. Those lighter vehicles, and any infantry squads or soft-skin vehicles/battle-taxis do not require scarce main-cannon rounds. But require something >12.5mm.
DeleteFurthermore you may not have the luxury of having any sort of numerical parity, you could be heavily outnumbered, even just in a few areas, under such circumstances you can run out of munitions. Additionally such a cannon is definitely more effective against helicopters and drones and whatnot than the 12.5mm cannon. FYI 20mm will not take out cannon, 30mm+ required for that.
Bassically equipping this intermediate caliber weapon increases the stowed kills of the MBT before the MBT needs to be reloaded. And the 30mm+ HE/Air-burst munitions are very effective against infantry...
Another opposition I have on the triple turret is that at one time only 1 gun can be used and while using that particular gun, the other guns cannot be trailed and stabalized on their own primary targets. Having a stabilized 30/40mm is good only if you are not sacrificing the 120's ability to trail its target. And in the heat of battle, no one is going to purposefulyl shift from 120 to 30 and then again back to 120 for hard/soft/hard targets. 1 gunner 1 gun 1 target at any 1 point of time.
DeleteFor the small amout of Missile carrying IFVs that will actually accompany an enemy tank advance, justifying production,maitenance and deployment of 5-6000 of such systems is not feasible not desired. A 3 man tank crew and an armored battalion being given a tank that has not 1 but 3 stabalized cannons that need all their attention.
The logistical footpint of a tank that now needs 120mm ammo, 30/40mm ammo, additional barrels for gatling guns, extra barrels overall, more machinery, more weight, more space for all that ammo. Its just not worth it. Its a niche product. Always has been otherwise every tank would have them by now.
@Another opposition I have on the triple turret is that at one time only 1 gun can be used and while using that particular gun, the other guns cannot be trailed and stabalized on their own primary targets.@
DeleteAt my take the "triple turret" will not be realized in reality. Looks cool but not for practice.
to Sarabvir Singh
Delete@Ukrainian future MBT @
What do you mean?
Info-infanterie
DeleteSolomon a couple of months back did a same post like this. A prototype of a tank. It was by a Ukrainian company outlining their version of a future Ukrainian Tank. I think if you type in Ukraine MBT in the seach here you will be able to find the post.
Yeah the triple turret design is a poor design, the cannon needs to be mounted inside the turret itself and fully stabilized or else it is useless. This looks like fan-art to me, or the developers have lost their minds. STRV2000 is an example of a much better layout for including a secondary cannon than this or the AMX.
DeleteYou can't really put the turret on the top, you need that area for hatches and sensors and ADS, and your small-arms RWS with 360degree fire arc, etc..etc.. The most practical place to mount it is along-side the main cannon, inside the turret. Switching between munitions is easy, just give them a joystick with multiple buttons.
In reality it imposes no additional complication for logistics if they are being operated alongside tracked IFVs with the same calliber cannon, which is what you would do. And it stillI INCREASES the stowed number of potential kills. You can't argue against that, more stowed kills is better.
You don't need a 120mm round to take out infantry when you can burst fire 3+ 40mm rounds out just as far and kill everything within 5m+ radius of each round, and have like 99% probability of kill on ATGM squad. Using the 120mm in that situation is just a waste. Or when A single round is 100% enough to take out a light vehicle.
Naah man, I still think it that while in a theoritical paper and simulation exercise it all makes sense but on the ground, this thing will be too complicated to maintain for its limited use and will be mucho expensivo through out its life. Maybe its the way the Russian inspired armored forces out there are trained to love simplicity which is why I am speaking like this.
DeleteIts never about the obvious in any weapon system. What we see here is the cannon and its ammo and it being stabalized. What we are nto seeign here is that its not not about the ammo but about how that ammo will be stored in the vehicle. Stowed away or ready to use. In a remote turret it will only be ready to use. Imagine having 3 different assembly lines for 3 different guns all in the same turret filled with ready to use ammo. That is extremely complicated. Sure...it can be done...the same way a Ferrai can be built. But anything above 10 million a tank and you are looking at a tank version of JSF. Already the Arjun Mk2 in India is priced at +8 Million dollars.
More on the concept of tanks co-carrying a light cannon for use in urban environments. As mentioned above, in emergencies the tank can be used with complete disregard to property and infrastructure. But in lower tempo operations and later stages of pacification in urban areas.....continued usage of heavy tanks with metal tracks in low maneouver areas is a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteThe underground resistance will also take benefit if this and will purposefully relocate to the "old city" areas. And people from third world/developing countries know full well what "old city" means. An area jam packed to the limit with people living in close quarters with small ittle gulleys and alley ways interconnecting them all where low hung illegal powerlines add to the confusion. Concrete slums.
In this kind of a scenario just imagine using a tank. Or imagine getting a tank to that troublesome area. You can either drive the tank to that area of use a Tatra Tank Transporter.
Tatra's are not avaiable to every armored squadron at any given point of time and have to be requisitioned. Which causes delays. Then comes the process of loading up the tank and shacking it in. Then comes the driving part. Then comes the unloading near the troublesome spot part. And then....finally comes the figting part.
Much better to get BMP with good support from Infantry. And if you are one of those lucky ones who have a AD battalion nearby in case of emergency.....wait till you see the Tunguska in action. The first time i saw it fire i got reminded of a cheese being grated through to make a nice dish. A nice dish of whooopass.
Comedy aside, i do feel that those cannons will be left out from any final production design.
Well I would cover the tanks in ERA and if possible equip ADS, put in rounds like XM1028 (shot/pellet round) and go in with infantry and CAS, encircle them and clear the place out. I would prefer flamethrowers too, but they are a bit unpopular nowadays. Possibly 'sanitize' the areas of heavy resistance with large-scale air-strikes (the type you see the israelis do that take down entire 12+ Story concrete apartments), or thermobaric weapons.
DeleteTanks with GoPro's  Attack Encircled Rebels in Jobar Syria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLK_Stj6h24
P.S- why isnt anyone discussion what Main gun is it carrying ?
ReplyDeletebased on reports, it's the Same gun as the T90. They have looked into a new cannon in the 152mm on the T95 concept but by all reports they fell back to the 2A46 125 mm gun they have used since T64. Right now it seems that the main gun of the Tank has stabilized 120mm 44-55cal in the west and 125mm 51cal for the East. Although Both have now tested larger guns neither seems interested in making the move.
DeleteAnd for good reason too. No one has made the first move because these guns look good enough to knock out each others tanks just fine. Though i suspect that the Russians would be more eager to get a successor to their 2A46 than the West for their Rhienmetall varients.
Deletethere are possibilities outside of the 140mm. For example the Us and South Koreans are both know to be working or have worked on ETC technologies which may mean Cleaner propellant burns, higher muzzle velocities and alternative propellants, but that's still down the line right now the biggest earth movers of the tank therefore are propulsion in the form of more electric hybrid less mechanical on a active suspension, More automated operation in the form of Remote turrets like the CROWS a fully automated turret then being the big step up, Active protection against ATGMs and RPG,s and Signature mitigation stealth for a tank may not be as stealthy as a fighter and would likely be combined with conventional armor and other defences but any edge on the battle field is a good edge.
Delete140mm ? The rounds of that cannon are going to be big. Poor loader in case there is no auto loader.
DeleteThey did test it with a manual loader... poor guy. on both the Abrams and Leopard 2 they intended to produce a Autoloader but I don't think they ever built one. in the end the Cost benefit and end of the cold war pointed against the move. Instead everything seems to show a trend to reducing the weight of the tank and Gun.
DeleteThere have been several autoloader prototypes for the Abrams. They include the TTB, CATTB and the Thumper prototypes. They are well worth a good google search.
DeleteIf this is true, then SEXY.
ReplyDeleteTrying some guesswork on the armaments, it looks like a 2A46/variant 125mm gun (some have suggested it will be bigger, but im doubtful of this. The Russians will take the route with more capable tube-launched ATGM, which is why the previously prototyped 152mm mounted on a T80 chassis was seen as a unnecessary complication), 12.7mm YAKB minigun, and a variant of the Shipunov 30mm auto cannon.
Im sure a remote system is mounted on top to accommodate a Kord 12.7mm or anything else like the "BTR" version of this vehicle is supposed to.
I
There is no need to mount three high-caliber guns on Armata MBT (IMHO). Armata MBT should take place of weapon for global war – somewhat about assault tank in conditions on nuke’s usage, especially with keeping in mind declared possibility to change 120mm for 152 mm (another word achieving possibility to launch nuke in artillery shell basement).
DeleteFor performance anti-rebels operations are designed another vehicles on Armata platform, like this flame-throwing support vehicle – new addition of BMP concept.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jp7nbD-MTxo/UhXKGB2DfaI/AAAAAAAAF_w/j27VlhJcyM0/s1600/Scan0002.jpg
Topic-starting Vid is nothing but an impressive image.
The smaller guns are most likely to use against the air threat, Helo's, drones and such.
ReplyDelete