T-14 Armata

Discussion in 'Land Forces' started by Nirvana, Feb 19, 2012.

  1. Nirvana

    Nirvana Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    145
    Location:
    Mumbai
    [​IMG] :bike:

    Russia To Launch Armata Prototype Tank By 2013

    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.

    Russia To Launch Armata Prototype Tank By 2013 : Defense news

    The timeframe they have set up to field this tank is real Quick

    [​IMG]
     
    Defcon, indian_sukhoi and Razor like this.
  2. Nirvana

    Nirvana Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    145
    Location:
    Mumbai
    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  3. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,157
    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.
     
  4. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,999
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    We'll see if West will take the bait or simply upgrade their existing MBTs...
     
  5. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,389
    Likes Received:
    2,300
    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. :lol:
     
  6. methos

    methos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    298
    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.
     
  7. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,157
    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.
     
    AVERAGE INDIAN likes this.
  8. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,679
    Likes Received:
    2,332
    Russia with its vast and open spaces do require huge quantity of armoured vehicles to defend herself. One can argue that Germens and Chinese would also require the tanks but why do others require it?

    For export to Arabs, Indians and Pakistanis ? or do they want to fight another Boer War? Beach landings may be ??
     
  9. methos

    methos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    298
    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.
     
  10. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,157
    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.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    p2prada likes this.
  11. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,389
    Likes Received:
    2,300



    ЦАМТО / Главное / Французская компания SESM предлагает новое МТО для танков T-72 и T-90
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  12. methos

    methos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    298
    Well, then I have problems with the term UCP :/
     
  13. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,157
    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.
     
  14. sukhish

    sukhish Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    165
    Russia can't do shiiiiit now a days. Only platitudes so that can be relevant . They trying hard to be relevant , that's the very sign of declining.
     
  15. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,999
    Likes Received:
    2,831

    I'm beginning to admire you intense passion to promote your country Armand.. :thumb:
     
  16. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,157
    Yeah, right, and in the same time they are capable to build such prototype.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Armed with 152mm high pressure smoothbore gun, protection higher than any existiing MBT, still highly mobile and weighting approx 55 tons. Show me what PRC or other such countries with aspirations for being super power shown? Nothing?

    This thing is also not very small...

    The only countries that shown something similiar in capabilities were US [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    and Germany [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] only these two countries had something that was comparable with Russian Object 195, and of course ex-Soviet (Ukrainian) Object 477 Boxer/Molot.

    So don't wrote idiotic posts when You don't know even 1% from R&D in armored vehicles development history of different nations...
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2012
  17. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,389
    Likes Received:
    2,300
    Don't you have to spend something to make something? Russia is busy slashing its R&D budget at the same time it is cancelling armour purchases.
     
  18. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,999
    Likes Received:
    2,831

    That thing is a behemoth. With the size alone considered I don't think it will pass the experimental stage...
     
  19. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,157
    I think You know very little about Russia, or any country east to Germany. ;)

    Yeah it is big, very big for something with unmanned turret, but this is the price for very high protection level and 152mm smoothbore gun.

    And guess what, it's size was one of the reasons to cancell Object 195 development program, to field it Russian Army would need to also build completely new infrastructure, like garages, repair buildings etc. Meaybe even new HET's would be needed to purchase, or bigger railroad transport lorry's + completely new ammunition.

    This beast was just too huge logistic nightmare for Russians. It is just better to scale it down and arm with 125mm smoothbore gun and call it "Armata" + base on it a family of UCP's with common components. ;)
     
  20. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,389
    Likes Received:
    2,300
    You would have to be blind not to see it. The failure has been going strong for three consecutive rearmament plans and now a third failed tank.
     

Share This Page