Russia's T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank Concept

Tigerman999

New Member
The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform is a Russian advanced next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform. The "Armata" platform is intended to be the basis for a main battle tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, a combat engineering vehicle, an armoured recovery vehicle, a heavy armoured personnel carrier, a tank support combat vehicle and several types of self-propelled artillery under the same codename based on the same chassis. It will also serve as the basis for artillery, air defense, and NBC defense systems. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015 and mass production is due to begin in 2016. A total of 2,300 MBTs are expected to be supplied by 2020, modernizing 70 percent of the Russian tank fleet.According to the General Director of Uralvagonzavod the first vehicles will be shown in the 2015 Victory parade
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform is a Russian advanced next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform. The "Armata" platform is intended to be the basis for a main battle tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, a combat engineering vehicle, an armoured recovery vehicle, a heavy armoured personnel carrier, a tank support combat vehicle and several types of self-propelled artillery under the same codename based on the same chassis. It will also serve as the basis for artillery, air defense, and NBC defense systems. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015 and mass production is due to begin in 2016. A total of 2,300 MBTs are expected to be supplied by 2020, modernizing 70 percent of the Russian tank fleet.According to the General Director of Uralvagonzavod the first vehicles will be shown in the 2015 Victory parade
2300 MBTs by 2020 sounds pretty optimistic, especially considering Russia's economic situation at the moment and all the other defence projects underway.
 

Tigerman999

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Yes you have a point there .. but that may mean that it is possible that there will be a new huge arms deals to cover this step expenses as there are many opinions indicate that Russia is trying to sell more quantity of tanks in there stores for allies .. am not surprised If they announced a huge weapon deals to Syria for example in short time especially ground vehicles ... but what really intrigued me is the (module) principle .. it's a very economical and practical step .. it will be great idea if you can adopt a unified carefully design vehicle , so that you can make a MBT tank from it and then downgrade it to IFV downgrade it more to APC ...etc . I believe that this principle (Platform) or what I like to called it (module) should be in all weapons systems like designing a heavy mashin gun (.50 cal) and downgrade it to anti material rifle downgrade it again to a sniper then battle rifle all the way to simply SMG !! All this weapons share some parts the goal is that if you have many MBT but not enough IFV or APC you take some of MBT and downgrade it and vers versa ! economical and practical as I said.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
2300 tanks is more of an eventual figure then a realistic 2020 estimate. They will probably have a few hundred by 2020.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You won't make an IFV out of an MBT without major factory level rebuilt, essentially close to a newbuild one.

Were a unified chassis has it's strengths is at the common spare parts and the reduced development costs. Having lots of shared automotive components reduces through lifecycle costs just a common chassis simplifies the development of new versions.

Look at the Merkava Mk.IV and Namer. They share several parts of the chassis but one can't easily rebuild a Merk IV into a Namer and vice versa.
 

bdique

Member
You won't make an IFV out of an MBT without major factory level rebuilt, essentially close to a newbuild one.

Were a unified chassis has it's strengths is at the common spare parts and the reduced development costs. Having lots of shared automotive components reduces through lifecycle costs just a common chassis simplifies the development of new versions.

Look at the Merkava Mk.IV and Namer. They share several parts of the chassis but one can't easily rebuild a Merk IV into a Namer and vice versa.
To build on that, generally speaking you'll either have an excessively large IFV powered by an excessively powerful engine (good luck with fuel efficiency, also the massive chassis is going to be a problem when you close in to assault an objective) or you'll have a an MBT with a tiny chassis which cannot hold much ammo, will have balance issues and will probably be underpowered.

Of course, if this design can be pulled off, it would be amazing, but I'm not optimistic.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Pretty sure it's not going to be modular. It's going to be a common chassis, with certain similarities. Which is one of the reason why I seriously doubt the project is really necessary.
 

Tigerman999

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
To build on that, generally speaking you'll either have an excessively large IFV powered by an excessively powerful engine (good luck with fuel efficiency, also the massive chassis is going to be a problem when you close in to assault an objective) or you'll have a an MBT with a tiny chassis which cannot hold much ammo, will have balance issues and will probably be underpowered.
No it doesn't have to be like that I will give an example :
Weight length wide height Eng
T-90 47, 5 7, 1 hall 3, 78 2, 22 1250
BMPT 48 7, 2hall 3, 8 1, 94 1000
Horse power
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bdique

Member
Pretty sure it's not going to be modular. It's going to be a common chassis, with certain similarities. Which is one of the reason why I seriously doubt the project is really necessary.
That would make more sense, theoretically there will be economies of scale for the production of the chassis (at least the front and mid sections), engine, drivetrain, track system.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that this is going to be an oversized, overpowered IFV. Probably useful in urban warfare (if it were me I wouldn't send a tracked vehicle in tho), to literally bring the infantry right to the doorsteps of the objective, but it doesn't change the fact that it will have a massive signature. I have a gut feeling it will be challenging to conceal this from enemy thermal sights.

To build on that, generally speaking you'll either have an excessively large IFV powered by an excessively powerful engine (good luck with fuel efficiency, also the massive chassis is going to be a problem when you close in to assault an objective) or you'll have a an MBT with a tiny chassis which cannot hold much ammo, will have balance issues and will probably be underpowered.
No it doesn't have to be like that I will give an example :
Weight length wide height Eng
T-90 47, 5 7, 1 hall 3, 78 2, 22 1250
BMPT 48 7, 2hall 3, 8 1, 94 1000
Horse power
Honestly, I'd love to see that vehicle up front. It's like they upsized everything simply because they can.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Why wouldn't you send a tracked vehicle into an urban environment?
Wheeled vehicles are less well protected, less able to cross rubble and rough underground, can't pivot on the spot and are less able to male use of their superior mobility on hard surfaces over long distances.
 

bdique

Member
Why wouldn't you send a tracked vehicle into an urban environment?
Wheeled vehicles are less well protected, less able to cross rubble and rough underground, can't pivot on the spot and are less able to male use of their superior mobility on hard surfaces over long distances.
Well, ok I should clarify. I'm not totally against the idea of tracked vehicles operating in urban environments. I mean, Thunder Runs are after all conducted with MBTs leading the charge.

What I mean is that between using a tracked IFV and a wheeled one in an urban environment, I would think a wheeled one would be better because

- Shoot out one tyre, or entirely destroy one wheel and the vehicle still moves on. If, however, a single track or even a track pin is destroyed or damaged, you'd suffer a mob kill. In a presumably dense, hostile environment, I don't think the IFV's chances of survival look good.

- Wheels make much less road noise as compared to tracks. Admittedly I've not seen how this is exploited in exercises, but I'm told this allows infantry to dismount closer to the objective without being spotted. Stealth, in that sense, can't be a bad thing right?

I will admit that tracked vehicles have their limitations in mobility, although I was thinking more along the lines of getting stuck in marshy ground where a tracked vehicle would have less of an issue.

Before this becomes a 'wheels versus tracks' thingy, I'd want to point out that different factors need to be considered. If intel shows that most main lines of advance are likely choked with rubble, and if I don't really want to secure objectives, just dash through and mess things up before the opposition has a chance to properly deploy and engage, then I can see why tracked combat vehicles might be better.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Honestly I think that it's all about positive control of ground. In other words, it's about the infantry and vehicle-mounted weapons maintaining situational awareness and suppressing threats when they appear. It's nice to have heavy armor, but at the end of the day it's the grunts protecting the crunchies from the as*hole with the RPG.
 

wsb05

Member
Well, ok I should clarify. I'm not totally against the idea of tracked vehicles operating in urban environments. I mean, Thunder Runs are after all conducted with MBTs leading the charge.

What I mean is that between using a tracked IFV and a wheeled one in an urban environment, I would think a wheeled one would be better because

- Shoot out one tyre, or entirely destroy one wheel and the vehicle still moves on. If, however, a single track or even a track pin is destroyed or damaged, you'd suffer a mob kill. In a presumably dense, hostile environment, I don't think the IFV's chances of survival look good.

- Wheels make much less road noise as compared to tracks. Admittedly I've not seen how this is exploited in exercises, but I'm told this allows infantry to dismount closer to the objective without being spotted. Stealth, in that sense, can't be a bad thing right?

I will admit that tracked vehicles have their limitations in mobility, although I was thinking more along the lines of getting stuck in marshy ground where a tracked vehicle would have less of an issue.

Before this becomes a 'wheels versus tracks' thingy, I'd want to point out that different factors need to be considered. If intel shows that most main lines of advance are likely choked with rubble, and if I don't really want to secure objectives, just dash through and mess things up before the opposition has a chance to properly deploy and engage, then I can see why tracked combat vehicles might be better.
Lebanon s experience in Abra battle with VABs proved very bad. Sniper were shooting under the Vabs and the bullets would reflect on the feet of the soldiers on the side. Many were injured this way.
Wheels are good for expeditionary forces and engaging from distances as they do not offer proper protection levels. Panhard as an exception proved good due to its very small size and ability to hit and run with a big gun.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Lebanon s experience in Abra battle with VABs proved very bad. Sniper were shooting under the Vabs and the bullets would reflect on the feet of the soldiers on the side. Many were injured this way.
Wheels are good for expeditionary forces and engaging from distances as they do not offer proper protection levels. Panhard as an exception proved good due to its very small size and ability to hit and run with a big gun.
Yeah, I don't know. On the BTR combat modules Russia (BTR-82 and BTR-88) has employed weapon mounts for the 30mm autocannons that allow them to be elevated to fire at the top stories of high-rise apartments. However on the new BMP combat module (the Epoha) they don't seem to have made the same provision. To me this says that they definitely intend to send wheeled armor into urban environments and have taken extra effort to guarantee it's effectiveness, but not necessarily tracks.

Then again next-gen wheeled medium platforms may also end up with the Epoha, which is problematic to say the least.
 

wsb05

Member
Yeah, I don't know. On the BTR combat modules Russia (BTR-82 and BTR-88) has employed weapon mounts for the 30mm autocannons that allow them to be elevated to fire at the top stories of high-rise apartments. However on the new BMP combat module (the Epoha) they don't seem to have made the same provision. To me this says that they definitely intend to send wheeled armor into urban environments and have taken extra effort to guarantee it's effectiveness, but not necessarily tracks.

Then again next-gen wheeled medium platforms may also end up with the Epoha, which is problematic to say the least.
VABs have a higher clearance then BTRs. Its wheels are spaced wheels especially in the 4 wheels version.
The weapon mounts are not restricted to the urban environment. They can be used in mountainous environments as well.
In general these vehicles in leb. Including tracked AIFVs are used as fire support. They do not offer any protection against IEDs, RPG etc..
 
Top