Future Armour

[a_majoor]

More on the T-14 and Armata family. Much emphasis seems to have been given over to active protection:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/detailed-analysis-of-new-russian-t14.html

Detailed diagrams of the new Russian T14 tank and T15 heavy infrantry vehicle

The T-14 is Russia's first truly new tank design since the T-72, designed in the early 1970s. Based on the Armata Universal Tracked Platform, the T-14's most attention-grabbing feature is its unmanned turret, with all of the MBT's three crew (commander, driver, gunner) seated in a well-protected crew compartment at the front of the hull.

Janes's has a detailed analysis of the new Russian tank and other Armata universal tracked platform based vehicles.

The MBT's turret is literally covered in a variety of launcher and sensor systems understood to be linked to a new APS system, which some reports call 'Afghanit'. At the base of each side of the turret are five large and fixed horizontally arrayed launch tubes covering the 120° frontal arc of the turret. These bear a strong resemblance to the launchers for the earlier Drozd and Drozd-2 APS, which fired a hard-kill 107 mm unguided projectile armed with a high-explosive-(HE) fragment warhead to defeat incoming anti-tank guided weapons (ATGWs).

The T-14 is also fitted with four sets of smaller-calibre launchers, with each unit armed with 12 launch tubes. Two horizontally trainable launcher units are fitted on either side of the top of the turret, while two apparently fixed and vertically facing launcher units are recessed into the top of the tank's turret.

New Armor and Reactive Armor

NII Stali is understood to have designed a new form of steel armour for the Armata family. Speaking to TASS, a NII Stali representative said the "steel armour alloy, named 44S-sv-Sh [44S--], is approved by the Armata's developer. The alloy's operational testing has been started and it can be used in prospective vehicles' parts". The use of the 44S-sv-Sh steel in Armata is intended to provide protection at a similar level to STANAG 4569 (first edition) Level 5. The high level of 44S-sv-Sh's protection is ensured by the short-grained material structure, the optimised legation process and the special heat processing. The steel has also been designed to maintain its characteristics in very cold conditions.

The Armata design is also understood to utilise explosive reactive armour (ERA) within its base design (rather than the appliqué ERA tiles seen on previous Russian MBTs), with views from above the MBT showing a distinctive tiled pattern indicative of ERA on the top of the vehicle's chassis and turret. Although what appear to be ERA tiles are present on the turret roof, much of the sides of the turret appears to be just a thin cladding covering the various APS and sighting systems rather than armour. Appliqué armour (unclear if passive or ERA, or both) is fitted to the forward two thirds of the T-14's sides, while the rear third is protected by bar armour to provide clearance for the T-14's exhausts.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

- 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.

I was wrong, 3 man crew, same as the T-72

 

[Kirkhill]

Index the T14s main gun to the 1 O'Clock position.

Now have the Commander and Gunner exit the vehicle....

Even the driver is going to struggle.

 

[a_majoor]

It's funny how 1980 era American conceptual designs along these patterns, as well as real prototypes like the AAI Rapid Reaction force tank did not seem to have these problems. The Jordanian Falcon III prototype splits the difference by having the turret crew still in the turret, just below the hull line.

I suspect the human factors in the Armata suck quite as badly as the T-72 series and all their upgrades and evolutions to the T-90. The other fighting vehicles using the "universal chassis" may or may not be so bad internally.

If we were to design a new tank from scratch, I think following the Merkava or CV-90 model with the engine in the front and allowing the crew quick egress out the back is probably the better way to go.

 

[Underway]

What are the advantages/disadvantages of having the engine in the front vice the back?  The vast majority of tanks have the engine in the back, why is that?  Is it because of maintainance?  Tradition?  Weight balance?  Mobility?  Gearing?  Survivability?  Space issues?

 

[a_majoor]

Front engine designs like the Merkava and CV-90 use the engine block as part of the armour envelope, since incoming rounds would have to penetrate the glacis plate, the engine block and then the rear firewall before reaching the crew compartment. It is also much handier when loading the tank since the rear space is fairly clear (the Merkava 1 could carry up to 80 rounds of 105mm cannon shells using the space in the back, or eliminate the extra rounds and carry a section of infantry).

Traditional rear engine tanks were mostly built that way for issues like balance (a nose heavy tank entering a ditch might pitch over very hard and damage the vehicle) and to ensure the turret was centered on the chassis. Don't forget that compact, high power output engines are a result of more than a century of continuing engine development and refinement. WWII era tanks sometimes used modified aircraft engines for power (particularly the Sherman, with some models using a Continental radial engine, but Centurions also used modified Rolls Royce Merlins similar to the engines powering Spitfire fighters or Landcaster bombers). Large engine bays were required to hold the powerpacks of previous generations of tank, which would have shifted the fighting compartment significantly to the rear.

 

[George Wallace]

Interesting photo showing comparison in size between the T-14 and the T 90A"

 

[a_majoor]

Future in the sense that *we* may be facing these things in the future battlespace. More relatively cash strapped nations selling relatively cheap modern tanks is bad news for deployed Canadian and Western soldiers. Pictures at link:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/china-ukraine-russian-tanks-battle-in.html

China, Ukraine, Russian tanks battle in the arms export market

In an effort to increase sales of its tanks in the face of declining global demand, China North Industries Group Corp, the country's biggest developer and maker of land armaments, is turning to a popular smartphone social networking app.

WeChat is often used by Chinese arms producers to release comparisons between their weapons and other nations' products - contents that they would not put on their websites in consideration of diplomatic issues.

So, like many other State-owned defense technology enterprises, Norinco, as the tank maker is known, is promoting its brand and products to WeChat's more than 500 million users.

Russia has only one new tank that is available for export - the T-90S. In contrast, Norinco the low-end VT-2, middle-end VT-1 as well as the high-end VT-4 (aka MBT 3000), covering the requirements of almost every client in the international market.

Norinco, which claims the Russian T-14 tank is weaker than the Chinese VT-4 in terms of automation, mobility, fire-control systems and cost competitiveness.

The T-14's transmission is not well-developed. There was a malfunctionof a T-14 during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade. By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far.

Norinco’s sales have expanded faster than any other major defense company over the past five years, surpassing Lockheed Martin Corp., maker of the F-35 fighter, and General Dynamics Corp., which produces Abrams tanks. The company’s $64.4 billion in revenue (2014) and 275,000 employees embody the clout of China’s defense industry as the party pours hundreds of billions of dollars into the People’s Liberation Army and molds Mao-era weapons makers into growth-driven conglomerates.

Norinco’s MBT-3000 tank boasts similar firepower and speed as the Abrams and costs about $4 million, compared with $6.9 million for the American tank. The T-14 Armata costs 7.4 million euro (US$8.2 million).

The main armament of the MBT-3000 has a 125mm smoothbore gun fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. It is fed by an automatic loader which holds a total of 22 projectiles and charges which can be loaded at the rate of eight per minute. The MBT-3000 can carry a total of thirty eight rounds of main ammunition. Types of separate loading ammunition that can be fired by the 125 mm smoothbore gun include kinetic energy penetrator, high explosive squash head and high explosive anti-tank warhead. The Mounted coaxial to the right of the main armament is a 7.62 mm machine gun, while mounted on the commander's cupola is a remotely weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun, for engaging ground and aerial targets. Mounted either rear side of the turret is a bank of six electrically operated smoke grenade launchers which fire forwards. In addition, the tank is equipped with a set of guided weapons, allowing use of a guided missile with a range of up to 5 km.

The MBT-3000 is motorized with water-cooled turbocharged electronic-controlled diesel engine developing 1,300 hp. Suspension is of the torsion bar type with hydraulic shock absorbers and either side consists of six large dual rubber-tyred roadwheels with the drive sprocket at the front, idler at the rear and track return rollers. To extend the operational range of the MBT-3000, two additional diesel fuel drums can be mounted externally at the rear. The 52-tonnes MBT-300 can run a maximum road speed of 70 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 500 km. The MBT-3000 can ford a depth of 4 to 5 meters with preparation and a trench of 2.7 meter. The tank can climb a gradient of 60% and a vertical obstacle of 1.2meter maximum.

China exported a total of 461 tanks from 1992 to 2013, according to the United Nations' Register of Conventional Arms, which began to record conventional weapons transfers between UN member states in 1992. Pakistan bought 296 Chinese tanks during the two decades.

Russia sold 1,297 tanks during the same period, with Algeria being the largest buyer.

The biggest tank exporter during the period was the United States, which reported sales of 5,511 tanks. It was followed by Germany, which sold 2,680 tanks.

In 2013, the latest year for which data is available, China sold 98 tanks to foreign buyers. Bangladesh, with a 44-tank deal, was the largest customer through, the UN said.

There are other tanks on the international market. Korea's K2 Black Panther, put into service last year has already contracted to Turkey. Ukraine's BM Oplot, first unveiled in 2011 but only just entering service

Oplots are not fighting Russian tanks in eastern Ukraine, however. According to Sergei Pinkas, an executive at Ukroboronprom, the state holding company that produces the new tank: "It's more efficient to export the Oplot than to use it in the war. It sells for $4.9 million overseas. It's better to sell it and use the money to fix and modernize 10 T-64s."

Indeed, this year Ukraine has resumed Oplot exports to Thailand, and hopes to deliver 39 tanks.

Norinco has already seen interest in the VT-4 from Cameroon and Pakistan.

The Oplot-M (Modernised) or BM Oplot is an upgraded version of the T-84 Oplot MBT.

Oplot tank

In 2012, VT-1A (MBT-2000) defeated the Russian-built T-90S in a competition and won a contract to produce 150 tanks for Morocco.

Any nation will field test each of the main competing tanks before making a large purchase.

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting (idle) speculation. We could get a family of AFV's including tanks, engineer vehicles, SPAAGs and so on if we were to buy the CV-90 family, or the Korean K-21 family (currently only an IFV and a 120mm gun tank, but the hull could be converted for the other tasks reactively quickly).

Is anyone aware of efforts to do the same with the German Puma IFV? A Puma hull is already armoured to the same standard as a Leopard 1 (and probably more), and since it already has a robotic turret the idea of a 120mm gun tank turret or other configurations does not seem to far out of the box. This would also be relatively quick to do, rather than develop a new tank from scratch.

 

[a_majoor]

The introduction of the T-14 spurs Western efforts to replenish their tank stocks and develop new tanks as a counter. I would also be happy if *we* were to get some first rate ATGM's to deal with the problem as well. Nice National Post graphic on the NBF page:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/russias-armata-spurring-revival-in-main.html
https://news.vice.com/article/russia-is-making-tanks-stylish-again
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/04/18/germany-to-buy-back-tanks-amid-russia-threat/25879281/

 

[Kirkhill]

Not this ----

But this -----

And this -----

 

[a_majoor]

To do the job well under any circumstances, you need a bit of A, a bit of B, and some more C actually.

Sadly we seem to have devolved into some B with a bit of A floating around to attach (if you are lucky).

 

[Kirkhill]

British Army tanks to be fitted with 'telescope cannons' after MoD signs £150m contract

  ;D

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-army-tanks-be-fitted-telescope-cannons-after-mod-signs-150m-contract-1508866

Ain't it amazing the things they can do these days? "Telescope Cannons".  Whodathunkit?

 

[a_majoor]

  ;D

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-army-tanks-be-fitted-telescope-cannons-after-mod-signs-150m-contract-1508866

Ain't it amazing the things they can do these days? "Telescope Cannons".  Whodathunkit?

Sigh. The education and expertise of writers at "news" organizations is so lacking thee days that the most incredible things come off their word processors without being caught by the "layers of fact checkers and editors" (who seem equally ignorant). A BBC article on the Greek debt crisis had the following line as well:

A euro working group began a technical revue of the new proposals in Brussels on Saturday morning.

Singing and dancing finance ministers might actually raise enough money on stage to make a small dent in the Euro crisis, but I somehow doubt that was the solution being proposed.....

 

[GnyHwy]

  ;D

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-army-tanks-be-fitted-telescope-cannons-after-mod-signs-150m-contract-1508866

Ain't it amazing the things they can do these days? "Telescope Cannons".  Whodathunkit?

Interesting.  Would like to see some performance stats, compared to conventional.

 

[Underway]

It's just the ammo that's telescoped. The gun is shorter because the chamber dimensions change.  Also means you can store more ammo in the same space.  I wonder if it's caseless as well.  And how do they deal with the heat if that's the case. 

Leads me to wonder why naval guns under 76mm are not caseless, they can deal with the heat better using liquid cooling. Perhaps it's because they don't have storage/space issues.

 

[a_majoor]

AAI corporation had developed a cased, telescoped ammunition 75mm canon as far back as the late 1970's as part of their program to develop and "RDF" light tank. The calibre was chosen as a compromise between size, performance and the ability to carry a worthwhile explosive payload, but the entire RDF program eventually evaporated (much like subsequent programs like FCS and GCV) due to changing priorities and requirements.

The ARES cannon would probably still be an effective weapon on the battlefield against everything except a tank, but the other "downfall" was anything which is called a tank (even a light or scout tank) is somehow expected to be able to defeat a MBT one on one as well. Since it is now possible to have full power 120mm canons mounted on ICV chassis like the CV90120 or the K-21 concept tank, cased telescoped ammunition in that calibre seems to be an interesting approach to fit more rounds into the smaller vehicle chassis (compared to an MBT). Of course and MBT using a 120 with cased, telescoped ammunition would also have more rounds available as well. (As an aside, the LSAT program to develop cased telescoped ammunition for Infantry weapons would also be useful, nothing like adding hundreds of more rounds of ammunition to the co-ax bin and commander and loader's guns as well....)

 

[Eland2]

Sigh. The education and expertise of writers at "news" organizations is so lacking thee days that the most incredible things come off their word processors without being caught by the "layers of fact checkers and editors" (who seem equally ignorant). A BBC article on the Greek debt crisis had the following line as well:

Singing and dancing finance ministers might actually raise enough money on stage to make a small dent in the Euro crisis, but I somehow doubt that was the solution being proposed.....

Most of the reportage that supposedly passes for journalism these days is abysmal. Part of the reason for this is a lot of news websites have basically become nothing more than content farms and aggregators, where the writers are paid diddly-squat for what they do, unlike the old days where real journalists were expected to get a real education in journalism, be paid a real and commensurate salary and produce high-quality stories.

Many writers have seemed to have forgotten proper spelling, diction, grammar and usage, as evidenced by some of the things I've seen popping up in articles, like the use of 'morays' when they mean 'mores', as in, 'social mores'. Or you will see them writing phrases without using the proper modifier, like 'serious good', when they mean 'seriously good'.

When I see how badly people are writing lately, I can't help wonder what they're being taught in school - or if they are actually learning anything while they are there.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

At least they did not use "double-plus good". 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

AAI corporation had developed a cased, telescoped ammunition 75mm canon as far back as the late 1970's as part of their program to develop and "RDF" light tank. The calibre was chosen as a compromise between size, performance and the ability to carry a worthwhile explosive payload, but the entire RDF program eventually evaporated (much like subsequent programs like FCS and GCV) due to changing priorities and requirements.

The ARES cannon would probably still be an effective weapon on the battlefield against everything except a tank, but the other "downfall" was anything which is called a tank (even a light or scout tank) is somehow expected to be able to defeat a MBT one on one as well. Since it is now possible to have full power 120mm canons mounted on ICV chassis like the CV90120 or the K-21 concept tank, cased telescoped ammunition in that calibre seems to be an interesting approach to fit more rounds into the smaller vehicle chassis (compared to an MBT). Of course and MBT using a 120 with cased, telescoped ammunition would also have more rounds available as well. (As an aside, the LSAT program to develop cased telescoped ammunition for Infantry weapons would also be useful, nothing like adding hundreds of more rounds of ammunition to the co-ax bin and commander and loader's guns as well....)

Has been done before