Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 486

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #451
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Its not impossible. I don't know the real specs for EFC barrel life either the 120mm or 125mm. It seems off though since muzzle energy from both using the latest rounds is very similar. You need a lot of pressure to propel a sabot to useful combat speeds. Both suffer less wear or handle pressures better than older rifled barrels. A quick internet search shows claims of 1500 EFC for the US/German gun and 1200 for the Russian gun. The few hundred rounds claim seems to be based on open source information about the 120mm rifled gun used in the Arjun/Chieftan (Challenger?) posted by DRDO which states a life of 500 EFC.
    Thank you Zraver, very concise and useful!

  2. #452
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    yesterday had a nice beer chat about Armata with same like myslef proactive amature inquirer. Because the profession of that amature is aviation engineer he was concerned about energy sufficiency to feed active array radar on the object like tank with engine of just 1500 horse power, which is 1103,27 Kw. For a tank of just 48tons this engine is OVERCAPACITY, however for a powerful radar (actually 3 of them) it is just right. However an electric generator working on an engine cannot transfer all of that 1103,27 Kw into electric power, after some calculation he came to a conclusion that tank can use those radars only with engine on high usage (unless it carries heavy and big batteries), and preferably without movements or with short movements to make sure supply of enough power to its radars.

    on my argument that SAM mobile units are carried by trucks he noted that there a special power generator truck in such SAM battery to supply energy to its radars. So I was puzzled. I told him about earlier discussion somewhere about heating of the radars and he confirmed that even on an aircraft it is a problem which requires cooling systems whose wight makes up to half of the radar module total weight.

    Anyway, the introduction of some emission equipment to armored vehicles is a done deal. However, such emission equipment may change the design of AV big time due to energy and heat factors.

  3. #453
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    yesterday had a nice beer chat about Armata with same like myslef proactive amature inquirer. Because the profession of that amature is aviation engineer he was concerned about energy sufficiency to feed active array radar on the object like tank with engine of just 1500 horse power, which is 1103,27 Kw. For a tank of just 48tons this engine is OVERCAPACITY, however for a powerful radar (actually 3 of them) it is just right. However an electric generator working on an engine cannot transfer all of that 1103,27 Kw into electric power, after some calculation he came to a conclusion that tank can use those radars only with engine on high usage (unless it carries heavy and big batteries), and preferably without movements or with short movements to make sure supply of enough power to its radars.

    on my argument that SAM mobile units are carried by trucks he noted that there a special power generator truck in such SAM battery to supply energy to its radars. So I was puzzled. I told him about earlier discussion somewhere about heating of the radars and he confirmed that even on an aircraft it is a problem which requires cooling systems whose wight makes up to half of the radar module total weight.

    Anyway, the introduction of some emission equipment to armored vehicles is a done deal. However, such emission equipment may change the design of AV big time due to energy and heat factors.
    A coarse approximation of combined drag forces on hard level ground is that drag force is in proportion to the square of the speed. At constant speed in a straight line (no turning) on hard ground, the propulsive force called tractive effort is equal to the combined drag force.

    Drive wheel torque is directly proportional to tractive effort. Drive wheel power is proportional to the product (multiply) of drive wheel torque and vehicle speed, so to counter combined drag when traveling straight on hard level ground the power requirement rises with the cube of the speed. More power is required to climb, turn, and/or traverse soft ground.

    Likewise in coarse approximations, drag internal to the driveline is treated as being near constant in each gear range, so drive wheel power is proportional to engine power.

    1/8 of the propulsive power is needed at 1/2 speed in straight line movement on flat hard ground.
    .
    .
    .

  4. #454
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,271
    I believe the Armata has 3 small AESA radars for hemispherical coverage with a range of about 3km for use with the Afghanit APS to target incoming RPGs, and anti-tank missiles. They may have some utility in spotting drones, helos, or low flying aircraft as well, but that isn't their primary function, and I can't imagine they draw enough power to require the full output of the engine.

    If the engine is oversized for the weight of the tank, it is surely to allow the Armata to retain mobility with the APS system active. What good is an active protection system if you have to come to a stop when you turn it on?

    AESA radars may use quite a bit of juice, but the ones installed on the Armata aren't even in the same league as actual AESA radars on SAM systems that are trying to detect aircraft at extended distances. Name:  92N6E-Deployed-Missiles.ru-1S.jpg
Views: 256
Size:  636.0 KB

  5. #455
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post

    If the engine is oversized for the weight of the tank, it is surely to allow the Armata to retain mobility with the APS system active. What good is an active protection system if you have to come to a stop when you turn it on?
    If you slow to 79% of maximum straight line speed, you free up 50% of the propulsive power otherwise needed at maximum speed, if you have a transmission that works efficiently at reduced speeds. Some such as the HMPT-500 family developed by General Electric in Pittsfield Mass (not by L3 in Muskegon Mich) are efficient across wide range of operating speeds, but many others are not.
    Last edited by JRT; 10 Aug 17, at 18:55.
    .
    .
    .

  6. #456
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I

    If the engine is oversized for the weight of the tank, it is surely to allow the Armata to retain mobility with the APS system active. What good is an active protection system if you have to come to a stop when you turn it on?

    AESA radars may use quite a bit of juice, but the ones installed on the Armata aren't even in the same league as actual AESA radars on SAM systems that are trying to detect aircraft at extended distances. Name:  92N6E-Deployed-Missiles.ru-1S.jpg
Views: 256
Size:  636.0 KB

    None of that matters a whit when it comes to power generation though. Modern vehicles generate power via an alternator not an electrical generator. Where they do use generators such as APU's they are powered independent of the main engine. Tanks don't need oversized engines to generator electricity. IF the Armata has a big engine its for mobility reasons. Not just top speed which can only be so fast, but also for acceleration, hill climbing, mud and other uses.

  7. #457
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Jul 16
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    12
    Even at 2 million fps, after the first few frames, the chemical explosive has already burnt up, and fireball is already mostly losing energy.

  8. #458
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,482
    Will have to backtrack to get the source but I saw a news article quoting a 'reliable' Russian Military website stating that Moscow had authorized production of the Armarta starting early next year at the decidedly underwhelming rate of 50 units per year for a total of 100 units by 2020 . This is apparently down from the 1500 units p.a. by the end of 2020 promised earlier with great acclaim. At that production rate it will be a loooong time before it dominates any battlefield anywhere. It will look good in the May Day parades though.
    Last edited by Monash; 11 Sep 17, at 23:15.

  9. #459
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,910
    Russian Armata production falters shift to upgrading old tanks
    Brian Wang | October 10, 2017

    The Russian Armata program, a universal chassis system that is intended to be the foundational element for Russias future armor force and includes the third-generation T-14 main battle tank (MBT), could be in danger of being cancelled, following recent announcements to upgrade T-80 and T-90 series main battle tanks (MBTs) in addition to revising plans to melt down 10,000 armored vehicles by 2020.

    Russia will melt down 4,000 armored vehicles and retain the remaining 6,000 as a strategic reserve. Earlier this year, the MoD also awarded a $417 million contract to upgrade T-80 and T-90 MBTs to modern standards.

    T-80 tanks will receive an armor upgrade, next to a host of other modifications, whereas T-90s will be retrofitted with technology found in the T-14 MBT including a new automatic target tracker and fire control computer as well as a remotely operated weapon station.

    Russia operates 550 T-90A tanks as of 2016. According to the plans of Russian MOD in 2010, overall number of T-90 tanks was planned to be 1400 units.

    Russia has 550 in active service T-80s and 3,000 T-80s in storage in 2016.

    T-72B3M: this is the newest variant of the T-72 fielded by the Russian army since 2016. Ammunition includes advanced projectiles. A large amount of reactive armor (analog to T-90MS). New radio communication. New panoramic sight. Increased protection against mines. A new fire control system. The most notable upgrade is the stabilized, panoramic, independent commanders PK PAN sight with integrated thermal viewer, thought to have similar specifications to the Sosna-U. The automotive performance of the tank was also improved with a more powerful V-92S2 engine rated at 1,130 hp (830 kW) coupled to an automatic transmission system and improved drivetrain. Relikt new generation ERA was installed. The Russian Defense Ministry has purchased several hundred T-72B3M tanks and received the first 20 in early 2017. 20 more in March 2017. Another 20 in May 2017. 15 more in June 2017. Total ordered 154 tanks. Link
    ________________
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  10. #460
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,482
    As I was starting to suspect. Just add the Armata to the long list of Russian 'super weapons', be they next gen aircraft carriers, hypersonic cruise missile and stealth fighters that get announced with lots of flashy pictures only to falter and then fade away without a wimper.

    Too many systems in need of replacement and too few roubles to pay for them all. So what money there is gets spent where Putin and his Generals can get the most bang for their bucks - the nuclear systems.
    Last edited by Monash; 16 Oct 17, at 07:30.

  11. #461
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    As I was starting to suspect. Just add the Armata to the long list of Russian 'super weapons', be they next gen aircraft carriers, hypersonic cruise missile and stealth fighters that get announced with lots of flashy pictures only to falter and then fade away without a wimper.

    Too many systems in need of replacement and too few roubles to pay for them all. So what money there is gets spent where Putin and his Generals can get the most bang for their bucks - the nuclear systems.
    To be fair, most of those are paper/propaganda projects. There are some videos on some projects on Youtube that are nothing short of hilarious. But this one was actually build and displayed. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia built enough for one division, at least.

  12. #462
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    To be fair, most of those are paper/propaganda projects. There are some videos on some projects on Youtube that are nothing short of hilarious. But this one was actually build and displayed. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia built enough for one division, at least.
    In a previous comment I noted a report that Russian defense commentators were reporting a proposed production rate of 50 vehicles p.a. out to 2020. Assuming that report as opposed to the latest one saying the Armata has been cancelled is true then, yes I suppose its also true they could equip part of their force with this design. I suspect however that the logistics just don't make sense. You'd have to have a whole supply chain supporting what? a couple of hundred vehicles - it just not economical, not with all the other pressing equipment needs their army has.

    Things would change of course if the Indians or Chinese came on board and said 'hey we'll take a 1000 hulls or so ourselves'. Then the economies of scale might start to kick in. But if it as high tech (and hence as expensive) as the the reports say then it looks like Russia can't afford to go it alone.

  13. #463
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    In a previous comment I noted a report that Russian defense commentators were reporting a proposed production rate of 50 vehicles p.a. out to 2020. Assuming that report as opposed to the latest one saying the Armata has been cancelled is true then, yes I suppose its also true they could equip part of their force with this design. I suspect however that the logistics just don't make sense. You'd have to have a whole supply chain supporting what? a couple of hundred vehicles - it just not economical, not with all the other pressing equipment needs their army has.
    Anyone knows if it can even fire the ammo used by T-90/80, since it's supposed to be a new, higher energy, gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Things would change of course if the Indians or Chinese came on board and said 'hey we'll take a 1000 hulls or so ourselves'. Then the economies of scale might start to kick in. But if it as high tech (and hence as expensive) as the the reports say then it looks like Russia can't afford to go it alone.
    I wonder what are the realistic chances of that? India seems to be forging ahead with the Arjun Mark II, as well as their own upgrades of the T-72/90, while China is pumping out tank new models almost every year...

  14. #464
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,152
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    T-72B3M: this is the newest variant of the T-72 fielded by the Russian army since 2016.
    Some - presumably 'purchased' by the "miners and taxi drivers" in Donbass appeared in Ukraine before 2016.

    Name:  thanks-graham.jpg
Views: 26
Size:  107.1 KB

  15. #465
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Anyone knows if it can even fire the ammo used by T-90/80, since it's supposed to be a new, higher energy, gun...
    The diameter of the smooth-bore cannon on the T-14 is still 125 mm, so I assume it is rated to a higher pressure to get more mileage out of improved ammunition designs while maintaining the ability to utilize current stocks.

    A 152 mm gun was apparently considered but ultimately discarded, likely due to the ammunition concerns you listed. Then again, a 152 mm cannon would theoretically make it compatible with ammunition for Russian field artillery...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 00:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 18:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 08:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 14:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 10:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •