Armata - Russia’s Top-Secret Battle Tank Captured on Video

[Oldman1]

The Stryker is not a tank. It's an IFV, IFV's have had remotely controlled tower mounts for a long time. We are talking about a tank, no tank in production has an unmanned turret.


The Stryker is pretty similar in basic philosophy to the T-14's automated turret but there are differences, the Stryker does not appear have a ammunition bustle, the stryker also has a 105mm canon while the T-14 has a 125mm cannon, smaller cannon are lighter, smaller and have less recoil. Turrets with larger cannons have to deal with larger auto loaders, room is a problem, larger rounds, again room is a problem. Engineering a weapons bustle separate from the carousel. Now the challenge is actually putting everything together and still having a turret that is lighter and smaller then a manned turret.




Good find, for a moment it looked like the stryker turret was actually automated and controlled from a separate compartment. This is nothing like the T-14.

I'm aware its not a tank but an light armor vehicle. But as you stated its pretty much similar in what it does as the T-14 so its nothing new to NATO or to the west as that poster mentioned as Russian only. The ammo is below the gun and little to the back, hence thanks to Barmeley's post with the schematic you see where its between the commander and the gunner.

The 105 is the same caliber as the one used on the earlier versions of the Abrams before adopting the 120. And because of this vehicle has to use the smaller gun for less recoil and its lighter. But its pretty much a remote weapons platform. Had they gotten rid of the hatches and so on, the crew won't be able to get out except to the rear or driver's hatch. But its still an LAV and smaller and not a tank.

M1128 Mobile Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Firepower
The MGS' remote weapon-station has a small silhouette, is stabilized and autoloading. The remote weapon-station mounts a 105 mm M68A2 rifled cannon. The vehicle is primarily outfitted to support infantry combat operations. While it could take on some of the roles of tanks, it is not designed to engage in combat with tanks. The MGS can store 18 rounds of main gun ammunition in the turret. It has a rate of fire of six rounds per minute.[3]

The MGS' 105 mm cannon can fire four types of ammunition: the M900 kinetic energy penetrator to destroy light armored vehicles; the M456A2 high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; the M393A3 high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and M1040 canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open.[4][5]

The Stryker is pretty similar in basic philosophy to the T-14's automated turret but there are differences, the Stryker does not appear have a ammunition bustle, the stryker also has a 105mm canon while the T-14 has a 125mm cannon, smaller cannon are lighter, smaller and have less recoil. Turrets with larger cannons have to deal with larger auto loaders, room is a problem, larger rounds, again room is a problem. Engineering a weapons bustle separate from the carousel. Now the challenge is actually putting everything together and still having a turret that is lighter and smaller then a manned turret.

I don't think its really difficult when you can put the ammo in the rear of the autoloading gun turret similar to the Leclerc of the new Japanese Type 10. The crew would be below or in front of the hull.

Probably they would be capable , but they didn`t make anything in that direction. Only US, Russia and Germany so far showed capability with tech demonstrators..



I`m talking about MBT category.

USA , TTB based on M1 Abrams

Germany NGP-EGS (it has turret weight simulator not actual turret)

Soviet Union , project "Molot" (Hammer)

Russia , Object 195

This are known projects plus probably more existed but are classified info.

40ton Future Combat Systems tank. Prototype of course.

 

[Hindustani78]

Russia’s All-New Armata Tank Rolls Over the Competition - Stern / Sputnik International

“An absolutely new main battle tank is certainly not something most of the world’s exiting armies can boast about. The German Leopard-2 tank was developed 35 years ago, just like the American M1 Abrams.The existing versions of the western tanks feature many improvements, but the basic characteristics do not differ much from the original,” the magazine said.

The new Armata armored tracked platform combines and assimilates all the last decade’s major developments and innovations in battle vehicle design and construction.

The T-14’s main forte is its unmanned remotely controlled turret armed with a brand new 125 mm smoothbore cannon. Its muzzle energy is greater than that of the world’s now 2nd most powerful cannon: the German Leopard-2 Rheinmetall 120 mm gun.

The tank crew is securely enclosed in a multi-layer armored capsule separated from the ammunition container. The vehicle is fully computerized and remote-controlled via high-resolution video cameras.

“Being on the cutting edge of the Russian tank building industry, the Armata tank is a highly maneuverable and fast machine,” the Stern concluded.

The tank’s builder, the Uralvagonzavod plant, can roll out around 500 T-14 Armata tanks each year.

 

[Kamil_baku]

No, they are not the first to mass produce it.

what is the main advantage of un manned turret?

 

[Penguin]

My bad..
Actually, from the #34 post, i can say that the engine will be in front..(if it is the armata) , as you can see that the exost system of engine is on the right side of the tank, it mostly happens when the engine is in front of the fighting vehicle..
You can check it on Puma, Tulpar and as we discussed, in Merkava..
.

Agree. besides exhaust (which is apparently very minima), you can also tell by where the sprocked wheel is: movie in post 1/page 1 has sprocket in the rear, while at #34 is it at the front.

 

[ptldM3]

I'm aware its not a tank but an light armor vehicle. But as you stated its pretty much similar in what it does as the T-14 so its nothing new to NATO or to the west as that poster mentioned as Russian only. The ammo is below the gun and little to the back, hence thanks to Barmeley's post with the schematic you see where its between the commander and the gunner.

The 105 is the same caliber as the one used on the earlier versions of the Abrams before adopting the 120. And because of this vehicle has to use the smaller gun for less recoil and its lighter. But its pretty much a remote weapons platform. Had they gotten rid of the hatches and so on, the crew won't be able to get out except to the rear or driver's hatch. But its still an LAV and smaller and not a tank.

The Stryker turret is manned, i was under the impression that it was unmanned and controlled via automation but it turns out that the gunner sits inside the turret. It is nothing like the Armata's turret because i the Armata the entire crew including the gunner sit at the front of the tank totally isolated from every other part of the tank including turret and ammunition. There is no comparison between the two.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@ptldM3

What is the price of Armata ?

Is it available for export

 

[ptldM3]

what is the main advantage of un manned turret?

It's been discussed already. With unmanned turret the survivability is greatly enhanced for several reasons. Firstly traditional turrets are manned so when it is penetrated that means that most of the crew will be killed or injured. While if the Armata's turret is breached the crew will be safe because they are isolated in another compartment. The other advantage of an unmanned turret is that it is smaller so it will have a smaller silhouette meaning it is less likely to be hit but aside from that the turret is also a lot lighter meaning you can have an overall lighter tank which improves its power-to-weight ration, fuel economy, ease of transportation, ect. And with all of the weight saved from an unmanned turret the designers can choose to put that weight back by putting it into other parts of the tank, meaning more armor can be put into the hull.

@ptldM3

What is the price of Armata ?

Is it available for export

I don't think there is a price and it probably wont be exported for the first couple of years due to domestic demands.

 

[flamer84]

The tank’s builder, the Uralvagonzavod plant, can roll out around 500 T-14 Armata tanks each year.

I strongly doubt that.

 

[Prechko]

I strongly doubt that.

UVZ has capacity to produce over 1000 T-72, T-90 if necessary. However i also think 500 Armata`s per year is unlikely.

 

[Kamil_baku]

It's been discussed already. With unmanned turret the survivability is greatly enhanced for several reasons. Firstly traditional turrets are manned so when it is penetrated that means that most of the crew will be killed or injured. While if the Armata's turret is breached the crew will be safe because they are isolated in another compartment. The other advantage of an unmanned turret is that it is smaller so it will have a smaller silhouette meaning it is less likely to be hit but aside from that the turret is also a lot lighter meaning you can have an overall lighter tank which improves its power-to-weight ration, fuel economy, ease of transportation, ect. And with all of the weight saved from an unmanned turret the designers can choose to put that weight back by putting it into other parts of the tank, meaning more armor can be put into the hull.




I don't think there is a price and it probably wont be exported for the first couple of years due to domestic demands.

to be honest, i dont think so that its that important to have unmanned turret. In new war, smaller size doesnt really save the tank and new tanks and IFV use guidded missiles..
on the other hand, it doesnt mean that it will be Lighter.. why do you think so? what specifically makes it lighter?
They need protection to stand against mostly used RPG-7. thats why, tanks increase their weight, but you also need engine to keep the maneuverability(which is also very important against tanks warware).
Armata tanks will use Turbine engine, which is good in weight to power ration. they are smaller than diesel engine. But, they are expensive to make and easy to detect in thermal camera. Also, use way too much gas. If i remember right, M1A2 use 1(4 litre) gallon per mile.
Russia used gas turbine in their t80 tanks but then choosed t90. Probably, they improved previous 1200 hp T80 engine..

 

[ptldM3]

to be honest, i dont think so that its that important to have unmanned turret.

If you were in a tank and you got hit with an anti tank missile would you want to be in a turret or or the Armata where you are sealed off in another compartment. In a traditional tank if the turret is penetrated then the crew is injured or dead since most sit in the turret. In the Armata if the turret is hit or even blown off the crew will not be injured.

In new war, smaller size doesnt really save the tank and new tanks and IFV use guidded missiles..
on the other hand, it doesnt mean that it will be Lighter.. why do you think so? what specifically makes it lighter?

The turret is lighter because it is smaller by volume. Traditional turrets need a lot of room for the tank crew and then to protect the crew you need a lot of armor. Some western tanks have turrets as heavy as 20 tons. I think i read rumors that the Armata turret is around 7 tons. Obviously the Armata has a much larger chassis compared to the T-72 and T-90 which is very small compared to western tanks. Armata has a similar size chassis or slightly larger then most western tanks but a much smaller and lighter turret.

 

[Penguin]

UVZ has capacity to produce over 1000 T-72, T-90 if necessary. However i also think 500 Armata`s per year is unlikely.

Capacity and funding to actually produce these numbers are two very different things.

 

[Azeri440]

I strongly doubt that.

the confirmed production rate will be set at 200 per year.

what is the main advantage of un manned turret?

the main advantage for tanks is safety , the crew is now completely separated from ammo and etc.
however when it comes to Stryker for example , the addition of a manned turret will drastically take impact on its weight
which in result will take effect on overall maneuverability and etc. Unmanned turret is compact and light.

 

[Hindustani78]

One of the most important pieces of technology added to the Armata is the Afganit active protection complex, a system that uses Doppler radar to detect incoming projectiles such as rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles. Once detected, the active defense launches an interceptor rocket that destroys the incoming projectile.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta Online notes that this protection could hypothetically allow the Armata to survive an attack from a US Apache helicopter. But the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office takes a more realistic view of the tank's planned capabilities and writes that the Afganit system would most likely be capable of defending the tank only from "shaped-charged grenades, antitank missiles, and subcaliber projectiles."

The Armata is also equipped with counter-mine defenses and a suite of high-resolution video cameras. These cameras would allow the Armata operators to have full 360-degree awareness around the body of the vehicle.

Significantly, the Armata's chassis has been designed to support various other military vehicles. Moscow is reportedly considering using the chassis to also support a range of rocket-propelled flamethrowers, self-propelled artillery, recovery vehicles, amphibious transports, and more.

The use of a single, highly adaptable chassis will help Russia cut costs while it is modernizing its military. Supply lines could also run more efficiently as the Russian military would not need to order as many varied parts to keep a range of machines running.

The first deliveries of the T-14 started trials with the Russian military in February and March. According to Interfax, large deliveries of the tank will start in 2017 to 2018.

 

[Akasa]

Our new tank will appear this year, too
Hope to give you guys a surprise.

Where did you hear of such rumors?