Any armor guys have any thoughts on it?

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-will-unveil-next-generation-armata-t-14-tank-victory-day-328775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

Russian tank have always had three weaknesses compared to the Abrams: shoddy fire control system, inferior projectiles (sabots), and lack of armor protection against our sabots. I doubt this one fixes any of those shortcomings.

First thing that pops into my mind- If the crew is contained in a compartment separate of the turret, what happens when the auto loader jams or malfunctions? Either the tank has to go out of action and find a secure spot to clear the jam or one of the crew would have to expose themselves in combat to clear the jam.

There is no way a two man crew would be effective operating a tank in a combat environment for very long.

2 man crew is a complete NO GO.
Cue the Rumsfelds of the world telling me that because of advances in technology there is no need for a 3 or 4 or 5 man crew on the rapidly changing modern battlefield where we just need more MRAPs and Strykers.

First, maintenance. Who's gonna do that? God help you if you throw track or something like that.

Second, I assume that there is only 1 gunner's station and only 1 driver's hatch. So... if something happens to either crewman, then you can't do at least one of the 3 things you're supposed to do as a Tanker - Move, Shoot, Communicate.

Now, let's say that you can use some sort of secure network to operate the turret remotely, your now putting your combat power on the ground at the mercy of the network crashing or getting hacked Iranian drone style. Wouldn't that suck? San Diego PD wouldn't be able to stop a runaway hacked Tank, not that they stopped the runaway M60 anyway.

There are other things that remain to be seen about how far the gun can depress and if the turret can traverse 360 degrees.

Another interesting thing I read in either a CNN or BBC report is that Russia plans to field something like 2200 of these by the year 2020.

I wonder what the US future Tank development plans look like. And I wonder what the Chinese plans look like too.

Tank plans are to keep with the Abrams and perform incremental updates as needed. Expect around 40 more years of the Abrams. That is what I am hearing anyway. Way too much money invested in this platform to bring another vehicle on line anytime soon.

What I would like to see:

1) New piston engine to replace the gas turbine. Fuel savings would be incredible. If the freaking frogs can do it, so can we with a little help from Detriot, Cummins or Cat.

2) Electric powered turret instead of hydraulics. Way too many engine fires due to use of hydraulics.

3) Better heater/AC than what is currently in use. It will lock up too frequently in the heat due to not cooling the electronics enough.

4) Regular shocks on the #'s 1,2 and 7 arms instead of the rotary shocks. They leak to damn much and are a pain in the ass to fix.

5) Diesel powered APU in the bustle rack, like we used to have. Was great for night ops and only used about 5 gallons of fuel in eight hours of use.

6) See #1 again.

Agree to all 100%, especially replacing those *@%# shocks.

Apparently, they're super reliable, too:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-brand-new-tank-just-broke-down-in-the-middle-of-1702919400?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

quote:

---

Tank plans are to keep with the Abrams and perform incremental updates as needed. Expect around 40 more years of the Abrams. That is what I am hearing anyway. Way too much money invested in this platform to bring another vehicle on line anytime soon.

What I would like to see:

1) New piston engine to replace the gas turbine. Fuel savings would be incredible. If the freaking frogs can do it, so can we with a little help from Detriot, Cummins or Cat.

2) Electric powered turret instead of hydraulics. Way too many engine fires due to use of hydraulics.

3) Better heater/AC than what is currently in use. It will lock up too frequently in the heat due to not cooling the electronics enough.

4) Regular shocks on the #'s 1,2 and 7 arms instead of the rotary shocks. They leak to damn much and are a pain in the ass to fix.

5) Diesel powered APU in the bustle rack, like we used to have. Was great for night ops and only used about 5 gallons of fuel in eight hours of use.

6) See #1 again.

---

There were also rumors a few years ago about replacing the copper wiring with fiber optic... That could save a ton (or two) of weight.

quote:

---

There were also rumors a few years ago about replacing the copper wiring with fiber optic... That could save a ton (or two) of weight.

---

But if damage occurs or something breaks, you need a special tech to repair the fiber lines. With copper wiring, you can either pull a new line or splice it back with no training.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There were also rumors a few years ago about replacing the copper wiring with fiber optic... That could save a ton (or two) of weight.

---

But if damage occurs or something breaks, you need a special tech to repair the fiber lines. With copper wiring, you can either pull a new line or splice it back with no training.

---

Most of the wiring is in the thermal and optic equipment anyways... So...

Oh.
I don't know much about the design of it, so take what I posted with a (large) grain of salt.

But I am generally leery of fancy, high tech things.
K.I.S.S. Can often provide better reliability.

Scruffy,

Every one of my proposed changes would, by most, be seen as dumbing down the current platform. However, each of those changes would make the tank much more reliable and efficient. If the powers that be would only talk to actual crewmen and see what works and what doesn't prior to making unnecessary and unneeded changes, we wouldn't have the problems that we currently have with the tank.

Next incremental change is going to be adding the CROWS system to every Abrams, which will further add weight and draw even more power from an already overburdened electrical charging system. You pretty much have to idle the tank all the time as it is to keep your system powered, and an Abrams uses more fuel at idle than while moving.

Hello APU or more fuel efficient piston diesel engine? HELL no, thats old technology.

A quick start capability that comes with a non turbine engine would make the tank much more lethal in urban environments.

A 1500hp piston engine was developed and tested extensively a few years ago. It performed very poorly compared to the turbine engine and could not produce enough torque on demand to handle combat maneuver tests. There were three different variants tested, all made by some of the best diesel manufacturers available.

The suspension thing has been tested repeatedly, also, and every attempt to re-engineer the suspension results in breaking control arms in cross-country tests.

The Abrams will not be around for 40 years (unless the current needs/wants change drastically). Based on the current plans for the next round of combat vehicle prototype engineering, I would expect an Abrams replacement to hit testing in about 15 years. Hopefully it does not come out looking like an up-gunned Stryker though

As for the Russian T-14, there is little intel to suggest it can do everything they claim it can do. They seem to have reached the theoretical limit of delivering (and stopping) megajoules of energy, and then ignored those theoretical limits by over-engineering things like the suspension. Plus, there is no way that country can afford to roll out 2300 next-gen tanks within 1 POM cycle. The worst case scenario is Putin wanting 2300 new tanks really, really badly (and being constrained by US/European sanctions) lashes out to claim what is left of Ukraine in order to pay for them and force NATO's hand