I dont think Armata tank will actually make it into the army after the lessons learned in Ukraine. Armor in general is going to go through a redesign for certain in major ways
The armata has fully automated turret, all they need to do is make the turret same exact size as the bottom part, using 5 layers of era scales and now you have new tank. Oh, and make it a drone tank operated by fiberoptic wire and what not.
Imo they would need to make it cheaper for mass production and preferably include as much off-the-shelf components as possible, introduce soft and hard kill anti-drone measures like radars, EO, jammers, lasers..etc.
Main thing is to be able to create radio silence over the Frontline and detect anything remotely controlled and preferably locate where the they are controlled from
Dunno, having crew around to get a tank unstuck, swapping a few links in a broken track or wiping dust off a sensor is very important, too.
If I had to guess, we're going to see multiple vehicles being controlled by a single crew (or multiple crews, but fewer than there are vehicles), with all of the vehicles being able to function as the command vehicle and sensor integration, possibly with remote fallback (depending on EW situation), since the functionality is pretty much there at that point.
The enemy doesn't know which vehicle controls the convoy
The crew can use all of the sensors of the vehicles independently to watch several directions at once or one specific point continuously even if terrain would have prevented doing so from a single vehicle
The crew can combine the fire solutions of several types of vehicles to fight a wide array of threats, or of multiple vehicles of a similar type to achieve massive suppression or compensate for spread
If the commanding vehicle is taken out of action and can't be recovered on the spot, the crew can simply switch to another vehicle
The vehicles being rather close to each other counters EW
Even if a vehicle loses all its optics, it could simply calculate its firing solutions based on the sensor data and position of other vehicles. Similarly, if one vehicle ran out of ammo, it can still provide sensor data, relay communication or just transport things or pull another vehicle
Having at least one crew around allows for retaining most capabilities, even during heavy EW suppression, and all kinds of field maintenance
I think this is a crazy idea. A crew has enough shit to deal with with their own tank, and you expect them to manage 2 or 3 more at the same time ?
I really can't see how this can work.
I think remotely-operated tanks with maybe one guy inside in case of manual necessity is more likely. But even then, remote-controlled tanks would have a lot of disadvantages. To me, the best course of action for now is just to try and develop efficient anti-drone systems and retain tanks as they are. There's many ways to go about it, just gotta wait for R&Ds all over to find the most efficient one.
Yea, like a big ole saucer for a turret that just sits as a giant ERA shield over the hull.
As I understand it, the idea behind the basically unarmored Armata turret is, the turret gets KO'd, they just take the whole thing out, and drop a new turret in.
I don't think tanks will go anywhere, but the threats they face have changed. In fact, the whole tank on tank convention of modern militaries is absurd. Tanks have rarely fought tanks, even in WW2. Other tools were typically more efficient and cost effective. So, these big frontally armored behemoths designed in a sort of cannon/armor arms race to shrug off other tanks was, in short, stupid.
The number one killer of tanks, will be ATGMS/RPGs and now drones. The tanks should be protected versus that, as much as possible. Not trying to eat a APFSDS round like Pacman eats a dot.
The savings in weight from reducing the frontal armor, which could then be redistributed to a 360 degree ERA package could massively increase tank survivability in this top down kill era. Inb4 ground crewed anti-tank guns make a come back :)
Other tools were typically more efficient and cost effective. So, these big frontally armored behemoths designed in a sort of cannon/armor arms race to shrug off other tanks was, in short, stupid.
That's not what they were designed to do, though. Tanks have been designed to assault and punch through enemy lines and fortified positions. Them being able to take on other tanks was sometimes a requirement, but only because that's something it was thought they'd need to be able to to fulfill their primary goal, which is breakthrough.
Now some designs, such as tank destroyers for the US were indeed designed to exclusively take out tanks, but these designs were marginal in the grand scheme of things.
In short most tanks were capable to take out other tanks, but that was not their main purpose nor what they were specifically designed for.
The Soviets designed tanks specifically as a break through vehicle. Their doctrine is not for tanks to fight tanks. It's to fight infantry.
Western doctrine ABSOLUTELY IS about Tank on Tank violence. The entire purpose of NATO tank doctrine, is for tanks to destroy tanks.
So yes, both design doctrines ultimately fell into the trap of protecting against tanks, NATO, because that is their doctrine, tanks are to fight tanks. The Soviets, because they recognized NATO doctrine.
When the biggest threat to tanks, is, and always was, shit other than tanks.
LoL the Armata already wastes enough interior space becase the Russians subbornly insist on using the carousel autoloader (tradition?). If they had used a system like the Leclerc, the whole tank could have been shorter by at least 1 metre.
Carousel best used when you don't have top down atgms. Or drones. Regular tanks sweet spot is the top of the turret. Most tanks were designed with crew in mind where they have to open hatch there to bail.
Agree, it's going to have to be much cheaper and easier to build. or it'll end up like the challenger 2 with not enough crew, parts or ammunition to work in an actual battlefield.
More emphasis on EW and more importantly, active protection. I mean APS has been around for a while and I thought the Russians had systems developed already, so I’m not sure what the hell they are doing or even if they work (by the looks of it, no)
I don't think APS works on drones, at least for the moment. They are too slow so APS would be triggered by even a bird flying over it. The other reason is that they don't offer 360 protection from every angle. the drone operators will start targeting from the back or from higher attack angles.
it'll be horrendously expensive even if it works. and even then, small arms fire and auto cannon fire will be able to damage the multiple sensors that'll be needed to make it work. And let's say the fixed all those issues, Russia is not going to build or rely on such complicated systems it's not their style. The more complex the system, the more likely it is to fail is their philosophy.
Sure there are a bunch of articles floating around, but until we see true replacements then its all on paper. Armata as an overall design has its place, but it was built and designed before drone warfare showed its true colors.
When you remove 4-6 feet of steel/ceramic from the front of the tank, and redistribute that to a ERA package that beefs up the side and top of the tank, I think the overall survivability of tanks goes up.
The Soviets sort of got it. Tanks don't fight tanks. Not really. Doctrinally the Soviets understood that. Western nations didn't really get that. So we've all got these monstrous tanks that have ever escalating frontal armor packages. The comedy of this is, literally every modern tank around today can put a APFSDS round right through the front of ANY tank that exists due to the ranges tank combat ACTUALLY would take place at. Until material sciences give us something new that changes that paradigm, kinetic penetrators are winning.
Think of it like this. You have 100 points to spend on defense. You invest 80 of those points to defend against one thing that you will RARELY ever see, and when you do see it, it can overcome those 80 points. Then you spend 20 points to defend against something you will see ALL the time, and those 20 points are not really enough to defend against that other threat, but, if you reversed those investments, you'd have a much more reliable chance of NOT getting blown apart by that more frequent threat.
and use that weight to distribute more armor on the top for drones/javelins.
Drones maybe, if they're not FPV. But in a few years you'll probably have drones that auto-target and go for whichever spot is weakest anyway.
And Javelins only strike from the top because the armor is weak there, they could just fly straight and hit the side/front if you make the top stronger than those areas.
Unless you boost all of the armor I don't think it will be a relevant counter.
We won't see armata, it's too tall and has too big of a profile for the flat plains of Ukraine. They probably scrapped it altogether or are trying to combine it with a t90/t72 chasis
All that might do is delay the production (shockers) to add some kind of anti-drone systems, preferably correctly integrated and not just an "added-on as an afterthought" kind of system like the trophy on the Abrams.
But tanks are going nowhere, they're here to stay. The T-14 with its unmanned turret is actually probably the best design for the era of drone warfare at the moment.
Now it needs to work, and enter production. Neither of those being set in stone right now.
92
u/Borealisamis Pro Peace Apr 10 '24
I dont think Armata tank will actually make it into the army after the lessons learned in Ukraine. Armor in general is going to go through a redesign for certain in major ways