Russia To Launch Armata Prototype Tank By 2013

Damian · 12-04-12, 10:58 PM

BTW, interview with Mr. Murakhovsky I mentioned.

Victor Murakhovski: a promising Russian tank object 195 was almost ready for mass production

Even in the darkest years of the Russian gunsmiths lack of money, despite the difficulties, continued to develop the most advanced weapons systems. One of them is already becoming legendary Russian tank Object 195, which for many years ahead of the world's most advanced design. However, currently there are attempts to diminish the feat of Nizhny Tagil tank designers. Tossed misinformation that the development of promising Russian tank completely collapsed. As things are in fact, we talk to one of the leading experts in the field of armored vehicles Victor Murakhovski.
- The new tank has successfully passed the state tests and all the technical issues of its creation was almost solved. Let's look at the main parameters that determine the combat and operational characteristics of the tank. For protection of the tank is fully consistent with the technical task, and even overlap those requirements, which were issued mainly Armor Management. In a new gun firepower in their characteristics superior to all that we had and that now is in the world. Initially there were some rough spots, because it was necessary to reach a very high specification for kreshernomu pressure, the initial velocity armor-piercing projectile. Any new technique requires fine-tuning, and a new gun at first could not fit into the requirements for the survivability of the barrel, but as a result of hard work has given a tool all the necessary features.
With regard to the harmful effect, there is the joint work of the Sverdlovsk-gunners and engineers boepripasnikov the Moscow Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building has provided armor-piercing projectile, which today is simply nothing to compare. Nothing even close to equivalent now we have no, or abroad. When people talk about protecting the most advanced modern foreign tanks on the kinetic munitions, sometimes called the inflated figures clearly advertising. So piercing projectile weapon that pierces the Project 195 real, that "advertising" armor with a huge margin. Those people who have seen the test results, received a deep impression on the capabilities of the gun.
If we talk about the fire control system, then the first phase of work is not possible to realize the original plans for the establishment of this system in its entirety. It has affected our industry lagging in some high-tech technologies, mainly on the component and the component base. It's no secret that Russia inherited from Soviet times, got a problem with the release of matrix thermal imaging devices, cooling systems, electronics, precision mechanics, high-frequency digital data processing systems. The financial and economic "famine" that occurred in the domestic industry in the 90s, only exacerbated the severity of problems.
But the idea of a multi-OMS was very brave, a breakthrough in the technical sense. The plan is almost complete automation of the job impact of the complex, close to the robotic picking processes aiming to synthesize a single image by selecting the reference channels, depending on weather and other conditions. It provides round the clock and all-weather capability of the MSA with approximately equal efficiency, its resistance to jamming in different bands.
Let me remind you that today's most advanced fire control system of tanks and other armored vehicles provide a work around the clock, but do not have the property of all-weather and drastically reduce the efficiency in noisy environments.
Because at some point, the likely timing of the requirements for the MSA in full were pushed too far and began to slow down the output stage of the machine to finish the complex has been somewhat simplified, and in this form has been successfully tested. According to its characteristics, it is not inferior to the advanced world development today.
Long-term mobility of the tank has been paid much attention to all the main parameters is significantly higher than the previous generation of machines. It is no longer a secret that has been selected, the Chelyabinsk engine, which is known as the A-85-3. There have been lengthy bench trial, a set of special tests (for reliability, high altitude, the low-viscosity oils, launchers), as well as interagency and sea trials at the facility.
In the design of the engine A-85-3 laid the technical solutions that allow him to remain for many years at the level of their foreign counterparts on key indicators, but on overall power even exceed them. Installation of a powerful engine in a limited amount of motor-transmisionnogo department required a long time to solve problems with heat transfer. In the end, all problems have been removed and the power plant has entered the specified parameters. For transmission with hydrostatic transmission, too, initially had some problems in terms of reliability, but they were successfully overcome. Cars pulling back many thousands of kilometers and in terms of the power plant with transmission fit into the specified requirements.
As for the chassis, the suspension and other components were calculated on the increased speed of movement over rough terrain, including some at the expense of robotic processes. With regard to mobility can recall mentioned in the press domestic work in the field of armored vehicles for automated driving of vehicles in the convoy, the automatic adaptation to the conditions of suspension movement, and so on.
The biggest advantage of the Project 195 is its revolutionary layout, which is fundamentally different from the so-called "classical configuration", leading its history since the French Renault Tank FT17. The main elements of the new layout were issued weapons, placing the crew in the building, separate functional compartments.
Fire explosive fragmentation of radiation inhabited a protected bay (capsule) in front of the machine, in fact, provided almost equal protection of the crew from all angles and at times increased the survival of the crew on the battlefield, even in the case of penetration of armor protection. This is a key indicator for today's Army, when it embarked on professionalization, and the costs of preparation and content of the professional crews of the life cycle of materiel closer to the cost of the equipment. No wonder the layout of the perspective of the tank, "Armata" actually inherited from the 195-th object.
Unfortunately, the Russian Defense Ministry refused to continue work on the Object 195, and stopped their funding. But this does not mean that the car should be handed over to the museum. Currently, there is some probability that the project will be continued in conjunction with one of the foreign countries with which we have a strategic partnership. I think that this tank has a future.
Speaking of the tank, not to mention the people who played a key role in its creation, who led large teams of developers, industrialists and the military: Chief Designer UKBTM, chairman of the chief designers of the Object 195 Potkin Vladimir Ivanovich, the director of "Uralvagonzavod" Little Nicholas, chiefs Main Tank-Automotive Management Galkin Alexander and Sergey Maev. The time will come, and about these people, a revolutionary next-generation tank, it will be possible to tell in detail.
Victor Ivanovich, and if we compare the object 195 from an earlier machine, which was developed in Kiev?
- In the late 80's to enter the stage of state tests was about to object 477 development of the Kharkov design bureau. If you compare it with the Tagil machine, you can understand that it is fundamentally different designs. 447-D object is developed in the framework of the ideology of the previous generation of machines. This ideology is fundamentally stemmed from the fact that there will be massive machine with a crew of draftees to participate in large-scale hostilities in the large body of troops, with the traditional scheme of control and communication, with a full complement of combat, technical and logistic support. So she repeated the ideological tradition of the Kharkov school tank: a dense layout with separate members of the crew habitable volume, which are almost never separated from the ammunition, fuel and lubricants, which are important components and assemblies of various systems of the tank.
To ensure the functioning of highly complex automatic loader, there were used designs of high kinematic complexity, with the long-run supply when charging the projectile gun, with its evolution in different planes, which affected the reliability of the automatic loader, which does not satisfy the customer.
Chassis basically there is not distinguished from the more developed for the T-64 sighting system on the parameters correspond roughly to the level that has been made at that time in the world tank building. In my opinion, a mistake was the choice of the unitary gun loader. 152-mm artillery round with armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile length is nearer to the growth tank.
By the end of the 80s the military has a very cool attitude to the object 477. No wonder that in 1988, was opened developmental work under the code "Improvement-88", which laid the foundation for the development of entirely new machine. Thus, the military said they Kharkov tank is not needed. The story of this car over, and copies are located in Kharkov, there it is in Kubinka. At present, it may be of a merely historical interest and museum. Even if it were not for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the tank would still be in the series did not go. And in a separate finishing and launching a series of machine current Ukrainian tank builders, I do not believe.

�� :: �� : �� 195 ��

Damian · 12-04-12, 10:59 PM

Double post

Saumyasupraik · 13-04-12, 02:44 AM

Aren't the T-90S we produce at HVF equipped with Kaktus and not Kontakt-5?The Kaktus is still not as advanced as the Relikt but is definitely not outdated, are any Russian tanks in service with the ground forces or any other nation equipped with the Relikt?

Kunal Biswas · 13-04-12, 11:00 AM

T-90S produced in Russia as well as India are equipped with Kontakt-5..
Relikt is used over T-90MS..
Kaktus is heaviest used on test bed tank black eagle..

Damian · 13-04-12, 03:32 PM

No, Indian, Russian and any other T-90 are still equipped with 4S22 Kontakt-5, while only several demonstrators build in Russia, T-72BM vel T-72B2, T-80B (known also as T-80BM) under Rogatka modernization program, and newest T-90M/MS use 4S23 Relikt.

ERA known as Kaktus, was only shown on prototype tank Object 640 (that have popular name "Black Eagle" in the internet). It is not known if Kaktus is less or more advanced than Relikt, both might have been developed at the same time. There is even more ERA developments in Russia, for example some time ago photos of universal turret module "Burlak" were shown and it appears that this time, protection of this turret is based less on composite armor and more on some sort of new type of ERA in really huge cassettes. Even older vehicle Object 187 was reported to use protection codenamed Malachit, but it is uncertain if this codename is for ERA only or whole protection = composite armor, ERA and active protection system.

methos · 13-04-12, 05:46 PM

It for sure was not designed "by the same bureau". The Leopard 2 was designed mainly be the German state in cooperation with a different number of companies. The whole development took (including earliest phase of concepts) about two decades. I have read a lot of times that KMW would have helped with the development of the Arjun, but KMW exists since 1999, prior this there were two companies - Wegmann and Krauss-Maffei, the latter one had more or less nothing to do with the development of the turret. Even though there were a lot of differences in German and Indian requirements, which could have lead to another design.
The Arjun is more or less a hybrid between Russian and NATO tank design - the design of the frontal hull and the placement of the turret armour follows the Soviet/Russian design doctrine (which IMO speaks against much influence from German companies), while the turret side/rear shape (~turret bustle) and the mantlet design have their origin in Western turret design doctrines.

That's not the way the Leopard 2 was designed (or the Leopard 1 was designed). A number of different hulls, turrets and components were made by different companies. Coordinated was it all by the government. Germany does not have "tank design bureaus".

it's exaggerated to some degree. We can see that the side armor modules end prior the hole for the commander's thermal imager in some other pictures, but the welding seams on the images might simply be wrong. Otherwise quite accurate.

Damian · 13-04-12, 06:03 PM

Indeed, and we can observe similiar scheme in many other tank designs developed in Asia region.

South Korean K2 for example, turret sides are protected only by thin RHA and covered by storage boxes, eventuall ERA can be mounted however but won't do much about tandem shaped charge warheads or APFSDS... in fact even HE ammunition with delayed or programmable fuze can be dangerous here, for example newest US AMP programmable HE can perforate ~150mm of RHA/CHA.

Or the Chinese ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99 series, although Chinese seems to angle side armor to some degree to hide it behind front armor, it is not as effective however as on Russian or Ukrainian tanks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2gatep/4961576583/

Or Japanese Type 10 tank, these modules on turret sides might look like an armor modules but in reality are storage boxes. Hinges for covers are clearly visible, in concept it is very similiar to Leclerc storage boxes also placed around turret. Also take a notice on the edge of turret side and it's distance to tank commander cupola, it's shows more or less actuall thickness of turret side armor.

It is rather interesting why turrets in machines of these nations are designed that way. Perhaps main concern here is weight issue... but then why to design turret this way? It is possible to design a Russian/Ukrainian type turret with bustle autoloader module, as Ukrainian Object 478H vel T-84-120 proves.

So the most important question is why? Such design solution makes vehicle vurnable not only to pure sie attack but also attack from vehicle frontal arc, as I showed in my previous posts.

It might look at some points wrong due to limitations of drawing. Due to inclination of armor, at some points near the turret roof there are cuts and similiar difficult to replicate on drawing things.

Weld lines on drawing are indeed wrong... sort of misinformation done on drawings in Hunnicutt books to made armor looks thinner than it is in reality. My lines are based on external weld lines seen on photos of real tanks, and internal photos. So armor in reality will end somewhere behind red lines. But the armor thickness values are more or less correct.

What is interesting, I never found a clear photos of opened and empty armor cavieties of turrets on production line... damn OPSEC.

militarysta · 14-04-12, 01:52 PM

People who see that don't talk.
In USA
in UK
in Gemany
and in Poland.

You know that.
BTW: many infos and photos came from freindly solders and you have it whit one "subject"/warning - You cant post it, and show from whit unit you have that. If you break this even one tme you will never have acess to interesting thinks.

methos · 16-04-12, 01:45 PM

I have asked around a little bit - in two of the biggest German forums nobody knows anything between a cooperation between KMW (or the predecessors) and India for creating the Arjun.

Damian · 16-04-12, 03:11 PM

Hmmm, starts to be interesting. So any other explanation for curious similiarity in design? Maybe DRDO designers were just inspired by Leo2 design? Or something else?

militarysta · 16-04-12, 07:31 PM

When Im looking on Arjun I see our (polish) never exist "Gorila" tank, or even PT-2000 The same wishful thinking and trust that homeland industry can produce good tank whithout any experience in developmend. Good bless in Poland we took ex-German Leo2A4.

In India the situation is slightly different - but in my opinnion Ajrun is fu**ed up - especially if you compare it to K2 or Altay, or Leo2A6HEL/E/Ex etc. The question is when Indian army will have really goog tanks making in cooperation whit western tank industry (NEXTER, KMW, etc). Russian have only "new" T-90M (in which the tower was removed most of the defects known form T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2), but hull in T-90A/SA/M is still "live zombie" known form Ob.184 (T-72B).

BTW in "Aramta" thema - all sights shown that this program will be ended in 2015-2017 successfully there are some new fact known about Armata, Ob.195, Ob.477 and others and when we arrange the puzzle it seems that Armata have very, very strong base and in fact it isn't new program

militarysta · 16-04-12, 08:33 PM

BTW:

utubekhiladi

Well defending Israeli CL Mk.II clones is not very impressive... according to test in Poland it can overpass only ~500-550mm RHA on 2000m (depends on HBscale, and target structure (monolit, or HB plates, etc) This even about 550mm RHA is middle 1980. level. It's not hi-tech in 2012...

It's depend - SC whit caliber between 70 -155mm with copper insert, and obtuse angle between 40-60. and with 0,3 -3kg explosive material
have between 1,5 and 9 MJ If You want I can checkt PG-7W in tabels -as I remember it was about 2,5 MJ

Polish CAWA-2 (middle 1990.) passive cermic armour was able to stop 125mm APFSDS whit E = 5,7MJ

Kunal Biswas · 16-04-12, 08:53 PM

In that case its good for Poland not India, Indian Army field some where 3000 tanks in different terrain it was important to have a tank made in India as it obvious, Home made tanks can be modified as per demand but same don't apply Licences Produce tanks..

Arjun MK-1 is first tank, Arjun MK-2 & 3 are next in evolution, Now there is where you can compare to K2 or some Turkish tanks.

Carry on..

utubekhiladi · 16-04-12, 08:57 PM

close enough you are in ballpark range

p2prada · 16-04-12, 09:07 PM

If the Arjun Mk1 needs to be compared to any tank, then it has to be with a tank that was designed in that timeframe, ie, late 80s and early 90s. There was no major evolution to the design only until now(Mk2). Maybe if a Mk3 is designed, then we may see much larger changes. Let's see how FMBT pans out. Perhaps we will know stuff only after 6 years, earliest.

Anyway seems like OFB and DRDO have developed a new shell for T-90. They will undergo tests pretty soon.

defence eXpress: Integrity Pact invoked against Israeli defence firm

Russia To Launch Armata Prototype Tank By 2013

Damian

Damian

Saumyasupraik

Kunal Biswas

Damian

methos

Damian

militarysta

methos

Damian

militarysta

militarysta

Kunal Biswas

utubekhiladi

p2prada

Similar Threads

India's first prototype fast breeder reactor at Kalpakkam to go critical early 2013

Russia to present nuclear train prototype in July

Russia's defense spending to rise by 60% by 2013 - paper

Russia's defense spending to rise by 60% by 2013 - paper

Russia to keep 2nd place in fighter jet exports until 2013