Future Armour

[TCBF]

- There are probably more T-90s in service outside of Russia than inside. Russia has thousands of modernized T-72s in units or in reserve. Their entire fleet of T-80s is out of service and awaiting the scrapyard's torch, and they still have thousands of T-54/55s in 'an enduring stockpile' (to borrow a phrase). So, at current wastage rates, the Donbas conflict would have to last another, oh, 3,900 years before Russia would ask to buy back some T-90s from Algeria, India, or build new ones.

- Ukraine, of course, can buy more tanks if Russia loans them the money.

 

[MilEME09]

Ukraine has a capability to make their own, just not the resources right now, the T-84BM Oplot is a very capable MBT, the problem is the lack of investment in the Ukrainian military means the production line is just going now.

 

[a_majoor]

The M-1 is being modernized, as several generations of putative replacements (Block III, FCS GCV) fall by the wayside due to out of control costs, changing military threats and incompetent program management. A diet of 2 tons might not be a lot, but it adds up over the fleet in terms of fuel economy, wear on the automotive components etc. I wonder if the Leopard 2 we use can be upgraded like this? (Note the author is clearly not military or ex military; the description of vehicles like the Bradley below are rather funny. As for using Bradley components to modernize vehicles and simplify logizstics, this was done with the LVTP-7 decades ago, so it isn't a new idea):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/upgraded-computer-and-fiber-networking.html

Upgraded computer and fiber networking could reduce the weight of the M1A3 tank by 2 tons

The U.S. Army is making prototypes now of the M1A3 tank. The Russia-Ukraine war is increasing the need for modernized armor.

Production units of the M1A3 should be ready around 2017. Estimates have determined that if the current computer cabling in the M1A2 tank were replaced with state-of-the-art fiber-optic cables, the weight of the tank could be reduced by almost two tons.

The Abrams has been criticized for its size and weight. At almost 70 tons, the tank has proven difficult to transport by air into foreign combat zones. It is incapable of crossing most bridges. The U.S. Army hopes to rectify these problems with the new M1A3 version of the Abrams, which is planned to be lighter and more manoeuvrable than previous generations.

To make the next version lighter and more mobile, the Army plans to replace the M256 smoothbone gun with a lighter 120 millimeter cannon; install a more durable track; use lighter armor; and insert precision armaments capable of hitting targets from 12 kilometers. Preliminary plans also call for the addition of an infrared camera and laser detector.

While the Future Combat Systems program was discontinued in the meantime, the types of ammunition continue to be developed:

Advanced Kinetic Energy (AKE): The APFSDS projectile shall be named M829E4. It should be ready now

Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP): multipurpose grenade, which is intended to replace M908 (Obstacle Reduction), M830 (HEAT), M830A1 (MPAT) and M1028 (Canister) by a grenade type. This also should be ready now.

Mid-Range Munitions (MRM): self-homing end bullet for indirect fire in up to 12 km away. Should be ready now.

Four tracked vehicle programs and one wheeled vehicle have significant ramp-ups in the 2016 budget request:

* $368 million for upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank, up 50 percent from $237 million in fiscal 2015.
* $225 million for upgrades to the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (a hybrid of tank and troop carrier), up 65 percent from $136 million in ’15.
* $230 million to begin detailed design of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), a turretless support variant of the Bradley, up 150 percent from $92 million.
* $152 million to further refine the upgraded M109 Paladin howitzer — known blandly as Paladin * Integrated Management or PIM — which rebuilds the vehicle with Bradley automotive components (notice a pattern?), up 90 percent from $80 million. (Note that’s R&D funds; actual procurement funding for PIM remains steady at $274 million for 30 vehicles).
* $308 million to buy 450 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV), which replace the all-too-vulnerable Humvee, up 86 percent from $165 million.

 

[MilEME09]

I wonder if the Leopard 2 we use can be upgraded like this?

In theory yes, I hear the A7 upgrade drops a bit of weight from the Leopard 2, and honestly IMO we should upgrade all of ours to one standard. Having more then one type in our fleet can't be good for logistics and cost (A4M, and the A6M).

 

[Kirkhill]

Ukraine has a capability to make their own, just not the resources right now, the T-84BM Oplot is a very capable MBT, the problem is the lack of investment in the Ukrainian military means the production line is just going now.

Part of the reason Russia is so bothered about hanging on to Ukraine is that, depending on the weapons system, Ukraine represents 30 to 100% of industrial capacity on which the Russian Armed Forces rely.  Antonov Aircraft is a case in point. 

 

[a_majoor]

In theory yes, I hear the A7 upgrade drops a bit of weight from the Leopard 2, and honestly IMO we should upgrade all of ours to one standard. Having more then one type in our fleet can't be good for logistics and cost (A4M, and the A6M).

Took a look at the Leopard 2A7 page on Military Today (http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm), which suggests the 2A7 is actually heavier (more armour, mounting brackets for plows, mine rollers etc.), but at least has the same mobility as the earlier generations of the Leopard 2 family.

I fully agree that the standardization of fleets should be a priority, letting things get this disorganized with mico fleets within mini fleets is totally insane from any training or logistical POV.

 

[MilEME09]

Took a look at the Leopard 2A7 page on Military Today (http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm), which suggests the 2A7 is actually heavier (more armour, mounting brackets for plows, mine rollers etc.), but at least has the same mobility as the earlier generations of the Leopard 2 family.

I fully agree that the standardization of fleets should be a priority, letting things get this disorganized with mico fleets within mini fleets is totally insane from any training or logistical POV.

But since its Modular, one can speculate for training you can make it lighter to lessen the strain on the vehicle, then put everything on if your taking the tank over seas.

 

[TCBF]

- Changing our Leopard C1/C2(1A5) to Leopard 2 has probably doubled the cost of just moving the tanks by low bed contract. As well, the 2 uses a LOT more diesel going from point A to B, at a time when our forward fuel carrying platforms (HLVW/MLVW) are wearing out with no cross-country replacement in site. If a tank could be modernized and in the process made lighter, then that is a good thing.

- I am a T-90 fan, myself.

;D

 

[MilEME09]

the total range of the Leopard 2 on one tank is only 50km less then the leopard 1, and the leopard 2 is faster so thats not much of an argument.

As for the T-90, sorry your favourite tank is not being produced any more with the introduction of the T-14 now occurring, expect the first public viewing of the T-14 this may. As the first dozen were delivered last month

 

[TCBF]

the total range of the Leopard 2 on one tank is only 50km less then the leopard 1, and the leopard 2 is faster so thats not much of an argument.

As for the T-90, sorry your favourite tank is not being produced any more with the introduction of the T-14 now occurring, expect the first public viewing of the T-14 this may. As the first dozen were delivered last month

- 49 1/4 Gerry Cans to fill a Leo 1. Sixty to fill a Leo 2. Cross country, the Leo 2 is a fuel pig. I was Tpt WO for the Strathconas three years ago. We gained a huge fuel burden as our ability to get those Gerry cans forward was degraded by our SMP Program management incompetence.

- T-14 is too leading edge.

 

[a_majoor]

Finding that right balance is so difficult.

In previous discussions, there have been arguments over the utility of modern MBT's with combat weights of 60,000 + kg over lighter vehicles. The general consensus was that masssive 3rd generation MBT's with their layers of passive protection were the better solution, particularly in close terrain or urban fighting, so vehicles like the M-1, Leopard-2 or Merkava 4 will be soldiering on for decades to come.

Fans of lighter vehicles such as CV90120 or the new tank based on the K-21 argue that lighter vehicles are strategically and operationally more mobile, can hit just as hard with their 120mm cannons, and can use high tech ammunition like through tube missiles or smart top attack rounds to shape the fight at long ranges. Logistically, they put less stress on the system; less need for fuel, easy to transport and generally part of a family of vehicles [CV90 or K-21 in the two examples] so parts, servicing and training can be shared out as well.

If these new light vehicles can be as effectively protected from close in weapons as Gen 3 tanks using active protection systems and lightweight passive systems (evolved versions of the "cage" and so on), then there is probably a better argument for the new generation of light vehicles.

 

[George Wallace]

the total range of the Leopard 2 on one tank is only 50km less then the leopard 1, and the leopard 2 is faster so thats not much of an argument.

As for the T-90, sorry your favourite tank is not being produced any more with the introduction of the T-14 now occurring, expect the first public viewing of the T-14 this may. As the first dozen were delivered last month

For your viewing pleasure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE

 

[George Wallace]

The Russians are updating and upgrading their armour vehicle designs.  The Armata hull will be used for a wide variety of vehicles, including heavy IFV. This is one of the variants, it looks like a it may be an Engineer vehicle along the lines of their current Minefield Clearing equipment (Rocket launched explosive rope/cable) such as the UR-77.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bk-wgWOTiA

 

[MilEME09]

The version that scares me honestly is they are updating the ToS-1 to the Armata hull, designated ToS-2 they are taking the opportunity to increase its range and capability. Thermobaric rockets always send a chill down my back when i watch videos.

 

[a_majoor]

War is Boring has an article with some good pictures of the Armata family of vehicles (at least what is "publically available"). Since the turrets are still covered with canvas, many details are not clear, however some of the more apocalyptic predictions don't seem to be true (the T-14 seems to have a RWS mounted on top of the turret rather than the two independent weapons mounts often described in the literature.) The IFV, SP and tank versions all seem to be here.

Since the picture size is pretty large, go to the link to see these:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russia-rolls-out-new-armored-fighting-vehicles-its-first-since-the-cold-war-80455890cb9f?section=%5Bobject%20Object%5D

 

[George Wallace]

Another photo of the Armata MBT:

 

[KerryBlue]

It looks like the T-90 and Leopard had a love child and that thing is the unholy result...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So is it now down to 2 crew members? I wonder if there is blast protection between the crew and the ammunition?

 

[TCBF]

So is it now down to 2 crew members? I wonder if there is blast protection between the crew and the ammunition?

- Makes for awful long radio watches, and the cam nets just got harder to up/down. Still, old crews prob had only two sober guys anyway.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

So is it now down to 2 crew members? I wonder if there is blast protection between the crew and the ammunition?

The Armata is actually the basis for a whole family of combat vehicles. We will have to wait until 09 May when the Russki's hold their Victory Parade to see what's under the canvas. More info there:

1st PHOTO: Russia’s secretive Armata battle tank revealed