The Armored Vehicle Thread

Maybe Shorta was overhyped and did not work that well, hence retired.

The APS used on Armata is, according to rumours, an entirely new model that was specifically developed for countering Javelin and co.

edited 5th May '15 8:20:03 PM by KnitTie

Oh so the Javelin is dead. Bummer.

I really doubt it. For once could you please leave off the exaggerations?

edited 5th May '15 8:23:24 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Well you've clearly got a pretty well stocked APS pod right there pointing upwards. An APS pod specifically designed to defeat the Javelin.

I don't really see how we can still count on the Javelin unless it turns out to be a complete disaster of a system. And with Russian armor it's safer to assume the worst when it comes to what they can do.

Always nicer to be pleasantly surprised something works than horrified when it doesn't

edited 5th May '15 8:30:32 PM by LeGarcon

How about we wait until the arms expo in September before jumping to conclusions? For all we know right now, Armata's APS might be a complete letdown.

Garcon: Or as knit tie said wait until we actually know more. We don't know what that is or what it does. Even if we did know what it, it takes a really big assumption to think it "obsoletes" any other piece of equipment. It could just as easily be a new smoke discharger and/or baffling system to give the tank an all around capability instead of a turret front facing capability. Smoke dischargers also point up and for a good reason. The air bursting smoke munition creates a large falling curtain to help rapidly disperse the smoke over a wider area.

Honestly compacting those systems and mounting them on smaller turret units makes a lot of sense as it would mean the tank can have at least all around coverage from the soft systems at least.

Another reason Shtora may have been replaced is the missiles it was meant to work against have long since been upgraded or replaced. The TOW is faster and wireless now for example and the slow rise of fire and forget ATGM's that don't fly in a path Shtora can affect. There is a chance the munitions leaped too far ahead of the ability to upgrade the system so a new one was called for.

Right. With top-attack missiles, the balance had swung pretty far in the direction of the ATGM. APSes might restore the tank somewhat, or they might not. (After all, Western tanks have had VIRSS for a long time. It's not as flashy as active protection, but it's supposed to be no less effective. We don't know because it's never been seriously tested.) In general terms, it might mean you'd need two or three missiles in volley launch to overwhelm APS—or maybe more, or maybe less. No amount of fancy technology can offset proper tactics.

If there is a potential weakness with APS systems in general, it's that the tank has to actively transmit radar for it to work, and that radar can be jammed or DF'd to reveal the tank's position. A possible technological counter might be a top-attack EFP warhead instead of HEAT, firing its projectile at a standoff range of fifty meters instead of fifty centimeters. Or, possibly, a slow but large munition with a payload of jammers and chaff along with its warhead, like what cruise missiles use.

That's technological spitballing, of course. But with loitering munitions and APS systems, the next generation of missiles and defenses against them may resemble smaller versions of naval missiles and point defenses.

edited 5th May '15 9:06:51 PM by SabresEdge

Or maybe take a page out of scifi, and use swarm munitions.

Large amounts of networked projectiles, overwhelm the APS since they have limited ammo too.

A good pic the wrong pic, thanks Le Garcon, you get a shiny internet!

Oh, Russia claims that foreign sales won't happen for another "five years".

Yeah, and I'm Le Garcon's Irish Auntie...

edited 5th May '15 9:23:25 PM by TairaMai

That's a T-90 though

Yea, ummmm thats a T-90.

Yes the pic is the T-90 but the rest of it could be accurate.

Ok now that I am home and have my nice monitor and all my browser tools I got a better look at those links.

The more I look at them the more I am convinced those vertical launch units are possibly smoke discharges for the passive system. They could still possibly be a hard kill component but I doubt it as it looks like the pods on the side mountings offer some rather wide coverage and likely do tilt up a fair bit. Not vertical but to an appreciable degree.

I don't think the Russians would forgo that IR/Thermal Obscurant system with the threat of laser guided AT systems still being very real plus the fact the smokes are also thermal sight obscurants. It definitely has a new hard kill system though. Instead of old radar pods and turret ring dischargers it has turreted box launchers and sensors. It looks a bit like Trophy actually. Rather then firing a charge up like a mortar I am betting those pods swivel and fire a shot more directly at the projectile.

Those horizontal fixed looking tubes are almost definitely for the general smoke screen for concealing movement and infantry deployment. Why two smoke screens generation abilities? The kinds of stuff they put in the APS smoke screens are not friendly to infantry and can contain hazards for troops not in the right PPE. You really don't want to breath that shit in. So you have additional smoke dischargers to create a large smoke screen immediately around the vehicle to hide the infantry allowing them to deploy or for a vehicle to maneuver quickly. The T-72 had the ability to use both kinds of smoke one to just obscure movement one of which was infantry friendly the other to counter targeting systems. I recall the T-90 being able to do the same.

The other reason I think those are likely smoke dischargers for the APS soft component is even Shtora had rear mounted dischargers. By using a VLS set up it can pack in more discharger shots in a smaller package meaning it can be used more then a couple times and done. Shtora only had 12 shots and it was done and it was fairly heavy for the dischargers.

What I am not seeing is anything that looks like an eletro-optical jamming unit unless it is incorporated into some other part of the tank. We may get a more detailed look at the victory day parade.

Kurganets looks to have spaced reactive armor. By that I mean rather then the armor being directly bolted to the tank it is mounted on a frame to leave an air gap between the reactive armor and the hull much in the same way spaced armor does. Take a good look at the top down of the Kurganets especially on the bow armor. You can see the clear stand off space and I would bet money that Armata has it to only the panels are likely all ERA or covering gaps. Hefty but a lighter option then really thick and heavy ERA armor which still has solid plates as part of its make up. In fact you could in theory use lighter thinner ERA because the gap helps add to the protection as well.

The Kurganets also has the engine mounted in front. It looks like the design is aimed direct hit survivability from the front heavily with some additional protection to the sides. I am also willing to bet it is a lot roomier then older Russian IFV designs.

edited 5th May '15 10:36:37 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Definitely. And the Armata IFV is huge—although, given the "armored capsule" design of the Armata MBT, plus the visibly different hull, I'm wondering more and more how much the two vehicles actually have in common. Chassis and drivetrain, no doubt, but on that basis you could argue the MLRS and the Bradley are about as similar.

I don't think that there's a top-down of Kurganets in the pictures I linked. Or do you mean the Armata IFV there, the one that looks like a gerrothorax?

edited 5th May '15 11:48:50 PM by KnitTie

The MLRS and Bradley are about as similar as the M113 and M548 .

Knit: My bad the Armata IFV not the Kurganets.

Does anyone know how much these vehicles weigh and cost?

I'll write up general impressions later.

EDIT: 57 tonnes as an MBT, and $7.4m dollars/platform.

edited 6th May '15 1:46:44 AM by Achaemenid

I am guessing that weight is for a fully kitted out Armata.

Where did you get that data?

edited 6th May '15 7:19:29 AM by KnitTie

Russia Today.

edited 6th May '15 8:19:27 AM by Achaemenid

So it's lighter, but more expensive than Abrams. But damn, that's a lot of money for a single tank.

Edit - And the defence ministry certainly agrees with me, seeing how it's managed to talk the UVZ into lowering the price.

edited 6th May '15 9:20:49 AM by KnitTie

It's the turret being fully automated that does it, I suppose. I doubt engineering all those remote control systems for the turret and its weapons was a particularly cheap endeavor.

Considering that the electronics, sights and automation that make the bulk of the cost for most armored vehicles, it isn't that far fetched for the unmanned turret to be the expensive bit.

There's evidence that UVZ might be unjustifiably hiking up the prices, now that I've researched the topic a bit.