Russia expects to complete the first prototype of the new Armata main battle tank by 2013 and begin production and deliveries to the Russian Armed Forces in 2015, the Russian media has reported.
According to Lenta.ru, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and the CEO of tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod Oleg Sienko discussed with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Armata's progress.
The report also said that the Defense Ministry has signed a contract worth six billion rubles with Uralvagonzavod to upgrade 170 T-72 main battle tanks, to be carried out at a specially prepared facility in Omsk.
“The Russian armed forces will have a new main tank with fundamentally new characteristics, fully automated loading and separate crew compartment by 2015,” Lieutenant-General Yuri Kovalenko, former First Deputy Head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Automotive Armor Directorate said last April.
Prototype of the cancelled T-95 , The Russian's will go Ahead with Armata as New MBT Which will Replace old T-72's
Some More Info from Russian Defence Forum -
Description: The Armata is a new main battle tank being developed for the Russian Armed Forces by Uralvagonzavod. The Russian Army concerns about the quality of the T-90 tanks and its intended successors the Black Eagle and T-95 prototypes led to the cancellation of the T-95 development and prevented any more T-90S orders for the Russian Army. The Armata is a new design aimed at fixing the low quality concerns of Russian-made main battle tanks. In February 2012, the Russian officials stated that the new tank prototype would be built and unveiled in 2013. So far, the new tank main components have been tested by the manufacturer and the military. The Armata is expected to be ready for mass production by 2015 entering into active duty with the Russian Army soon after.
In April 2011, the Russian Army officials claimed that the new main battle tank would have new characteristics compared to its predecessors, fully automated loading for the primary gun system and separate crew compartment.
In short, "Armata" will be a heavy tracked universal combat platform, for several different type of vehicles, it's MBT variant will be more or less downsized Object 195.
Good, of Russians will sow new tank, then it will be catalizator for US to start it's own new MBT R&D program... if such thing would happen, we could see a very interesting development competition between the two.
This is the third Russian attempt at a modern MBT and the trend is it will be full of French kit. They might as well give up trying to make domestic systems as every year there is a new contract with French companies. First it was Catherine FC, then it was Thales comms gear, then it was Sagem INS. I am awaiting the next announcement for French automatic transmission and power packs. There is a real uproar over the Army Chief saying they won't buy armour for another 5 years.
It will fail. There won't be Armata, all projectsof the past to develop a common chassis for MBT, IFV and support vehicles have failed (although budget seems to be the main reason for this). FCS, NGP, FRES etc. have all failed. FCS was cancelled without any leftovers, while NGP has been reduced to SPz Puma and FRES has been reduced to FRES SV (which is also not a new design, but just a pimped ASCOD). It would be quite confusing if the Russians, who lack the fundings to upgrade their T-80s and continue larger scale production of their T-90s would be successfull.
Unmanned turrets and seperation of crew and armour compartment are BTW not new thoughts, earliest designs which incorporate such ideas are from the 50s and 60s.
Will probably not happen, because the "French" power packs on the Leclerc are in fact MTU hyperbar designs bought by France. The UAE decided to go for MTU enignes and Renk transmissions with their Lerlecs.
Methos, "Armata" is far more logical project, because Russians are not making the same mistake with universal combat platforms as west done. They do not want a one single UCP, but 3 UCP's.
"Armata" is a heavy UCP for MBT, ARV, HAB and CEV + possibly HIFV and HAPC.
"Kurganets" is medium UCP to replace BMP's and to serve as a platform for other non heavy armored vehicles.
"Boomerang" is wheeled UCP designed to replace BTR's and vehicles based on them.
And there is also "Typhoon", platform for MRAP's and similiar vehicles.
It is far more sane project than one "gold plated" platform for any type of combat vehicle.
T-80 series are not seen as needed, they will be maintained untill their service life will end. Currently Russians see T-72B and it's modernizations as their basic MBT and T-90A as their high tech MBT, rest of not needed tanks are sold or scrapped.
Trend is to manifacture these systems in Russia and later replace foreing technology with technology developed in Russia.
Why do they need it? Russians have their own good engines, also much more compact ones with comparable power.
Designers are also considering replacing traditional Diesel with hybrid engine or even all electric propulsion.
"West"? You mean US right? Europe with military budget cuts and in fact allmost non existing heavy combat vehicles industry base these days is military dwarf without any meaning... even if some Europeans belive otherwise.
Ok, I didn't know that they go three-way... but what is the difference between their "UCP" logic and other countries? ARV, AVLB, CEV and MBT are in most cases based on the same chassis (Leopard 1, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, M1, Leclerc are all such families without being called "UCP"). So they want to introduce a modlar design (i.e. same vehicle will be used with different modules like turret module for MBT, crane for ARV), which then again is the same as FCS, NGP etc. only with the different that they design three projects which are potentional failures. The only vehicle from 1900 to now which is really modular in such manner, is the GTK Boxer, which is pretty limited in current usage and is pretty uncommon (two operating countries only).
According to an older Der Spiegel article the Swiss company Hispano-Suiza already marketed their HS. 30 IFV (Schützenpanzer lang) as being modular; the Spiegel wrote that the superstructure was intended to be changable by using bolts/welding seams - the reality proved that this was not possible.
The results from NGP were more or less that a single chassis for several tasks is not working, NGP wanted three chassis' - one for MBT, one for IFV and one for support vehicles. An ARV/AVLB/CEV does not need a turret ring, a SPH needs a larger one, while SPAAG can use the same as a MBT. If they are successfull in designing and introducing Armata, Kurganets and Boomerang, then I want to see how they will base their next generation SPHs and SPAAGs on them.
Once again Methos, You are making mistake comparing Russian designing philosophy with NATO designing philosophy.
As far as I understanded, also thanks to drawing provided by Gur Khan (Alexei Khlopotov) there will not be anything like modular design.
Their concept of UCP is to bring in all classes, one common hull, but this hull will not be reconfigurable for different roles. So if vehicle once will left production line as MBT it will remain MBT.
It have it's logic, because we still have that needed commonality between vehicles, the platform in each variant is the same, but we have here just hull specialization.
This is concept drawing for "Armata" provided by UVZ as far as I know. As we can see, MBT, ARV/CEV and BMPT versions have rear mounted engine, while SPH, HIFV/HAPC have front mounted engine, however the platform is the same.
It is not UCP in traditional western thinking, but have it's own logic, because designers are avoiding the difficult to do one hull multirole capability, while still performing a task of common hull capability.
BTW, below one of Russian made compact Diesel engines made for future heavy tracked platforms.
No Methos, there is no problem with Your understanding of UCP term, it is just You understand it as... westerner, while Russians have different thinking.
For example, here in west we have Explosive Reactive Armor, while the same thing in ex USSR is called Dynamic Protection or Динамическая защита, it is good example of different philosophy and different terminology.
But then again, their ideas might not be bad, look at "Armata" this way, it does not have a weak point of Merkava, weakly protected front hull due to front mounted engine, in fact with rear mounted engine and heavy front hull protection with isolated and armored crew capsule it will have very heavy protection in front, giving tank variant of "Armata" edge over for example UCP with front mounted engine.
Well we should probably not even call "Armata" one UCP or unified platform as Russians call it but a family of unified heavy tracked platforms.