New Russian tank about entering service?

[Skybird03]

http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/the_new_russian_main_battle_tank_protype_armata_will_be_completed_by_2013_1702122.html

http://worldwide-defence.blogspot.de/2012/02/new-russian-armata-tank-to-appear-in.html

Probably an IFV-variant of the project:

By some sources earlier this year, the Russian Armata tank will enter service by 2013, other sources say it will be 2015. Some say 2013 will be a prototype ready, others say 2013 will see first regular deliveries.

It seems to be a tank with an auto-turret and a crew of three sitting in the hull. There are blueprints in some forums that shgow the verhicle in several versions, which corresponds with claims that the vehicle actually will be a whole group/family of vehicles, one of which an MBT, another one being an IFV. In aforum, I saw blueprints of the tank, three crewmembers sitting side by side in the front behind the frontally-built engine, and a squad compartment in the rear. Reminds of the Merkava. The gun callibre often is said to be 150+ mm, sometimes just 125 mm. The Ruzssians refer to it as a "Universal Combat Platform", and some of their experts are referred to by Russian sites to have said they could imagine to turn not just the turret but the whole vehicle into a fully robotic tank ideally suited as a combat vehicle in offensive scenarios, gaining ground and establishing a beachhead under fire.

Is anything known about this phantom for sure? It seems the long-rumoured Black Eagle project is no longer alive and parts of its developement found entrance into the Armata.

And are there any plans to set eSim's eyes on this thing? I believe I know the answer to be currently negative, I just ask to reasons of completeness of this post.

While skimming over various sites I found that after a "moratorium" they restart building a modernised and improved version of the BMP-3 whose design is said to adress criticism and complaints of the early version.

[dejawolf]

seems to be the long-rumoured T-95. it's been in development for the past 20 years or so.

[Skybird03]

As I understand it the T-95 refers to the now dead Black Eagle project. I think the Armata is a T-99. The Black Eagle in parts merged into the Armata.

But the info on the various web sources are untested and in parts contradictory. It is difficult to sort rumour from safe info - if there is any at all. I would not even trust the official Russian army sites or thre site of the company building the tank, since such sites may have a stake in spreading propaganda to boost their own ointerests.

What seems to be relatviely safe to say is that the company building the tnak got a presidential order to deliver at least prototypes in 2013, and delivering first units to the army in 2015. They also modernise several T-72 and T-90s, and restart production of an improved BMP-3. If the pics in the articles I linked, and some others, are for real, I cannot say. Note that the sketches we have seen of the Black Eagle looked very different from the Armata now.

[dejawolf]

As I understand it the T-95 refers to the now dead Black Eagle project. I think the Armata is a T-99. The Black Eagle in parts merged into the Armata.

But the info on the various web sources are untested and in parts contradictory. It is difficult to sort rumour from safe info - if there is any at all. I would not even trust the official Russian army sites or thre site of the company building the tank, since such sites may have a stake in spreading propaganda to boost their own ointerests.

What seems to be relatviely safe to say is that the company building the tnak got a presidential order to deliver at least prototypes in 2013, and delivering first units to the army in 2015. They also modernise several T-72 and T-90s, and restart production of an improved BMP-3. If the pics in the articles I linked, and some others, are for real, I cannot say. Note that the sketches we have seen of the Black Eagle looked very different from the Armata now.

no. the T-95 is what the armata is, and is known under the experimental designation ob.195. the black eagle was developed separately to the T-95, and was known as ob.640.

[Jartsev]

Skybird03, this not a project, but a graduate or postgraduate study from Military Academy of Armored Forces. Later they were used by Oleg Brilev(former head of tank departament in that academy) as illustrations for some of his articles. Graduates from MGTU and VA BTV generating tons of such stuff.

About contemporary studies:

So-called T-95- cancelled.

"Armata"- code-name for current future heavy family of vehicles(MBT, ARV, HAPC or HIFV) R&D study; probably some solutions developed for ill-fated "Т-95" will be used. But its quite possible that finally UKBTM will roll-out something like T-90MS on steroids. In any case we will see some outcome in next 4 or 5 years(or we will see another cancellation)

Object 640/"Black Eagle"- fund-raising project by Omsk KBTM; dead for many years.

[Skybird03]

Object 195 and Black Eagle went into the Armata project, says Ria Novosti.

http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120326/172401704.html

German Wikipedia refers to two sources (in Kyrill, I cannot say anything about what these sites are, therefore) according to whom a MBT-project named T-99 is being developed inside the Armata project. Two new MBTs, that would mean.

And on an Indian site they said the T-99 is in service with the Indian forces, and is an offspring of the Black Eagle. Now that makes the confusion complete, I assume. In service? Maybe the Indians have a completely different designation?

As I said, info situation is quite confused.

P.S. And this is the German edition of Ria Novost: http://de.rian.ru/security_and_military/20110428/258969884.html

In that German article they say that the Armata tank is a replacement for the T-95 which never got produced.

[Skybird03]

Skybird03, this not a project, but an graduate or postgraduate study from Military Academy of Armored Forces. Later they were used by Oleg Brilev(former head of tank departament in that academy) as illustrations for some of his articles. Graduates from MGTU and VA BTV generating tons of such stuff.

I assume you mean the blueprint? Yes, I noted meanwhile that the arrangement of the three crewmembers is not in conformity with what on Ria Novosti was said about the gunner sitting in a separate compartement.

[Jartsev]

I assume you mean the blueprint? Yes, I noted meanwhile that the arrangement of the three crewmembers is not in conformity with what on Ria Novosti was said about the gunner sitting in a separate compartement.

Yes. Blueprints are taken from graduate study and later used by some faculty and departament staff for their articles.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Jartsev

[Jartsev]

Object 195 and Black Eagle went into the Armata project, says Ria Novosti.

http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120326/172401704.html

German Wikipedia refers to two sources (in Kyrill, I cannot say anything about what these sites are, therefore) according to whom a MBT-project named T-99 is being developed inside the Armata project. Two new MBTs, that would mean.

And on an Indian site they said the T-99 is in service with the Indian forces, and is an offspring of the Black Eagle. Now that makes the confusion complete, I assume. In service? Maybe the Indians have a completely different designation?

As I said, info situation is quite confused.

P.S. And this is the German edition of Ria Novost: http://de.rian.ru/security_and_military/20110428/258969884.html

In that German article they say that the Armata tank is a replacement for the T-95 which never got produced.

This is not a confusion, but an ignorance of modern journalists.

[Hank]

Nice thread. Is the trend moving toward front engine MBT's or AFV's ... like the Merkhava?

I wonder how reliable the autoload mechanisms are for large rounds like what MBTs have. There was a tank in development in the US (I saw in a video) which I've read has been scrapped, that was a very low profile two crew tank with autoload cannon.

I know autoloaders can be made reliable for smaller rounds but a 120mm is pretty large and heavy. I could search for this stuff but I thought I'd ask those who are in the know.

[Ssnake]

Nice thread. Is the trend moving toward front engine MBT's or AFV's ... like the Merkava?

If it were a real vehicle, if if we heard about other projects in development which would also have front engines, maybe we could then talk about a trend. Front engines can be problematic if they add heat blur for the optical sensors, and they also tend to imbalance the vehicle, thus reducing the width of gaps that they may safely passage. Finally, while the engine adds protection, it also means that mobility kills may occur more often with a front engine.

These arguments against a front engine are somewhat universal. With clever design one can mitigate some of the issues to the point where the net benefit is positive to put the engine in the front.

But it's too early IMO to talk of a trend.

[dejawolf]

Nice thread. Is the trend moving toward front engine MBT's or AFV's ... like the Merkhava?

I wonder how reliable the autoload mechanisms are for large rounds like what MBTs have. There was a tank in development in the US (I saw in a video) which I've read has been scrapped, that was a very low profile two crew tank with autoload cannon.

I know autoloaders can be made reliable for smaller rounds but a 120mm is pretty large and heavy. I could search for this stuff but I thought I'd ask those who are in the know.

the russian T-72 has had an autoloader since 1972 and it's been more or less flawless.

the finns who used it in the 90s never really had much trouble with it.

french leclerc also has an autoloader.

[Jartsev]

Nice thread. Is the trend moving toward front engine MBT's or AFV's ... like the Merkhava?

No. Frontal powerpack placement have some advantages, but there are some serious problems mentioned by Ssnake. According scarce information about "Armata" 2 basic chassis are planned- conventional and with powerpack in the front. First is intended for MBT and the second- for HAPC(or HIFV) and some other possible vehicles(like SPG).

I wonder how reliable the autoload mechanisms are for large rounds like what MBTs have. There was a tank in development in the US (I saw in a video) which I've read has been scrapped, that was a very low profile two crew tank with autoload cannon.

Reliability solely depends from design.

I know autoloaders can be made reliable for smaller rounds but a 120mm is pretty large and heavy. I could search for this stuff but I thought I'd ask those who are in the know.

Well... Caliber does not matter- naval forces are using different kinds of automatic and mechanized loading systems more than a century for their really huge guns...

[Hedgehog]

If it were a real vehicle, if if we heard about other projects in development which would also have front engines, maybe we could then talk about a trend. Front engines can be problematic if they add heat blur for the optical sensors, and they also tend to imbalance the vehicle, thus reducing the width of gaps that they may safely passage. Finally, while the engine adds protection, it also means that mobility kills may occur more often with a front engine.

These arguments against a front engine are somewhat universal. With clever design one can mitigate some of the issues to the point where the net benefit is positive to put the engine in the front.

But it's too early IMO to talk of a trend.

Also, would you assign Protection/Armour to the engine?

Or to the crew compartment?

I.E. The Firewall/Bulkhead between the engine and crew compartments.

[Jartsev]

Not about tanks but...

Some interesting pics leaked:

1) Future C2 and C4 tracked vehicles, chassis is claimed as "Kurganets-25"

Some reported connections with chinese ZBD-97(actually a joint russo-chinese program) are confirmed by those pics.

...

[Jartsev]

...

2) Future C2 and EW("Infauna" R&D study) wheeled vehicles, probably based on "Bumerang" chassis(designer of the basic chassis is not identified)

Looks like overall design of the chassis is inspired by some well-known GD-ELS and Patria products...

[Skybird03]

Korea has a new bad beast in inventory, it seems. The K2 Black Panther.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/k2_black_panther_mbt.htm

Protection level of the M1A2, but being much lighter. Autoloader 15 rounds per minute, 120mm Rheinmetall cannon. 1500 PS. Crew of 3. Composite armour, ERA, active protection.

The thing even looks stroppy.

[Damian90]

Korea has a new bad beast in inventory, it seems. The K2 Black Panther.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...anther_mbt.htm

Protection level of the M1A2, but being much lighter. Autoloader 15 rounds per minute, 120mm Rheinmetall cannon. 1500 PS. Crew of 3. Composite armour, ERA, active protection.

The thing even looks stroppy.

Protection levels of K2 might be comparable with NATO MBT's only on turret and hull front. Side protection of hull is also comparable but side protection of K2 is inferior to NATO best 3rd generation MBT's and several other designs.

This is probably a reason why K2 is lighter, turret with side turret protection made only from probably max 80mm thick RHA plates covered by storage boxes.

This is not very impressive and makes vehicle vurnable within safe manouvering angles.

If I had to choose between K2, NATO MBT's or Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) MBT's I would choose or M1A2SEP/Leopard 2A5/6/7 or T-90MS, maybe T-84M Oplot, but definetly not South Korean tank.

Also from what I know, K2 have only 14 rounds in it's autoloader cassettes, and this might be true when we compare size of it's turret bustle with other MBT's.

[lavictoireestlavie]

Concerning the K2, this diagram might help:

[Damian90]

As I said, thin side armor. Many tanks designed in Asia, if not all tanks designed there, are hybrids when it comes to composite armor placement and turret geometry.

They use Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) composite armor placement scheme, but with western turret geometry scheme.

This is their way to reduce weight of vehicle, but is not a good idea when it comes with vehicle protection.

Such turret geometry makes turret sides exposed within vehicles frontal arc (60 degrees, also known as safe manouvering angles). In Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) designs, thin turret side armor is angled such way, that it is fully covered by front armor and not visible for enemy with 60 degrees frontal arc. In NATO designs turret sides are protected (full lenght or only crew compartment) by thick composite armor, that at 30 degrees hit, is preaty thick.

So there is really no reason to be excited with Asian MBT's when discussion comes to their protection and comparing it to other designs.

[Skybird03]

I wouldn'T rule out that K2 so easily. It currently is the most expensive tank in the world, says Guiness book, and has some unique features, amongst them a cannon controlled by - radar :debile2:, allowing engagement of units while on the move, tracking distances to close to 10 km, and engaging helicopters and aircraft.

Turkey has evaluated the K2 versus the French and German MBTs, and the Koreans won a contract that allows Turkey to build modified K2 in license.

The Koreans also field smart top-attack ammunition, and kinetic rounds described on the web as being top notch class for Tungsten rounds.

The frontal armour, reports Wikipedia, has proven to defeat modern 120mm SABOT fired from the L55. The tank has what they call a soft kill anti-missile system, and is expected to get a hard-kill anti missiles system within the next five years, they write. The tank also has radar and laser warning receivers.

The K2 also features an additional small gas-APU to secure power supply when the main engine, a 1500 PS Diesel, is shut down.

There seem to be quite some innovations.

[Eisenschwein]

...and it can drive over Water...

[Gibsonm]

The K2 also features an additional small gas-APU to secure power supply when the main engine, a 1500 PS Diesel, is shut down.

There seem to be quite some innovations.

I wouldn't call an APU an "innovation", they have been around for some time.

[12Alfa]

I wouldn't call an APU an "innovation", they have been around for some time.

Yes our Centurions had them.:cul:

[Skybird03]

I wouldn't call an APU an "innovation",

A radar-controlled tank-cannon that even can engage aircraft and helicopters, I would. An autoloader feeding the gun with 15 rounds per minute - around as fast as a well-trained human, I would, too. And let's wait what those missile-kill systems are about.

I assume further they have designed the tank according to the combat environment they expect to fight in if the North goes amok. And maybe they expect to be more bothered by ATGMs or AT-helicopters, than by flank shots by overaged Soviet and Chinese tanks.

South-Korea is an extremely capable high tech nation, and this tank costs much more than the Abrams or the Leclerce, the price counts from 9 million per unit upwards. I don't think they would waste so much money on a tank that is not justifying these costs somehow, even more so with North Korea stepdancing on their nosetip every couple of weeks. Right the opposite I think, I think they have built right the thing that they wanted to have. And different to us Germans with our Leopards, they have a clear and present threat right in front of them. With a very realistic chance that the cold war could turn hot over a misunderstanding, or an accident - or by intention. If Germany maybe has overestimated for example the Puma project''s capability, maybe, this would not immediately threaten our vital security interests. But if South Korea is not prepared to go to war with its Northern neighbour any time, this could easily decide its fate.

What I mean by that? The Koreans have no freedom to mess up a project like this.