Armata tank: Abrams Hunter

[EmoBorg]

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/05/armata-soviet-parade-t14/26915519/


The Russian Federation has unveiled it's first new tank design since the fall of the Soviet Union. It is the Armata T14.It weights 48 tons and can travel at more than 50 miles per hour.

The tank is highly automated. The Russian military says it could be the basis for a fully robotic tank in future.

It has a remote-control gun turret with a 125mm smooth-bore cannon that can fire guided missiles as well as shells.


The crew of three is housed in a reinforced capsule at the front away from the firing systems.

The Armata's chassis is adaptable as it can also serve as the platform for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, an engineering vehicle, a multiple rocket launcher and some other variants.

Russia plans to bring in about 2,300 Armatas, starting in 2020, to replace Soviet-era tanks. They are built by UralVagonZavod.

 

[DarthTom]

^^^ I saw that story and I'd be curious to hear from a military strategist on how obsolete or not tanks are now? It seems to me that drones are the new, 'tanks,' of the battlefield? Also, the US military is working on some fairly advanced battlefield robots that may be more effective than a tank as well?

 

[EmoBorg]

^^^ I saw that story and I'd be curious to hear from a military strategist on how obsolete or not tanks are now? It seems to me that drones are the new, 'tanks,' of the battlefield? Also, the US military is working on some fairly advanced battlefield robots that may be more effective than a tank as well?

For armoured vehicles, a state of the art Surface to Missiles coupled with an excellent radar equipment, could counter drones.The Russians can fire an anti tank missile from the new tank's gun. Theoritically, they just need to design an anti aircraft missile designed to be fired from a tank gun.

 

[Silvercrest]

I want a Bolo!

 

[DarthTom]

For armoured vehicles, a state of the art Surface to Missiles coupled with an excellent radar equipment, could counter drones.The Russians can fire an anti tank missile from the new tank's gun. Theoritically, they just need to design an anti aircraft missile designed to be fired from a tank gun.

Interesting thank you. In a hypothetical battle though, couldn't a swarm of drones not only out number but out maneuver a tank battalion?

In other words, 100 drones would easily pick off a group of tanks because of their numerical advantage and that they are in flight and not limited by terrain.

Also, of course tanks put human lives at risk - drones do not.

 

[farmkid]

The fact that drones are in the air also gives them a huge advantage. Because they are already high in the air, their missiles have a significant range advantage over that of the tank. It is much easier for them to carry a missile that will allow them to reach the tank while staying out of the tank's range.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For armoured vehicles, a state of the art Surface to Missiles coupled with an excellent radar equipment, could counter drones.The Russians can fire an anti tank missile from the new tank's gun. Theoritically, they just need to design an anti aircraft missile designed to be fired from a tank gun.

Interesting thank you. In a hypothetical battle though, couldn't a swarm of drones not only out number but out maneuver a tank battalion?

So could a swarm of PLANES. Or, for that matter, helicopter gunships (which is basically what happened to the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm).

The answer to THAT problem is, of course, to not send ground units into a region where the enemy has completely unchallenged air superiority. If the enemy is sending drones, shoot the fuckers down. If the enemy is sending helicopters or fighter bombers, shoot them down too, or at least harass them so they can't sit there and massacre your tanks/APCs/troops with impunity. This has been the case since at least the First World War, and is the whole reason why air superiority is so important to basic military strategy.

In other words, 100 drones would easily pick off a group of tanks because of their numerical advantage and that they are in flight and not limited by terrain.

Assuming you just happen to have 100 drones just laying around, all armed and ready to take off and swarm those tanks, and assuming your opponent is stupid enough to let you launch all of those drones without eventually doing something about it (like bombing the air base where you are launching them or, better yet, bombing the control center where you are remote-piloting them). That, again, comes to air superiority and the sometimes extraordinary lengths a combatant must take to secure it or prevent the enemy from securing it.

If you're going in against an enemy with air superiority, it doesn't matter if you're driving a tank or a rickshaw. Either way, you're screwed.

Also, of course tanks put human lives at risk - drones do not.

Unless, of course, those are drone tanks.

 

[Timo]

The thing about tanks is, they are pretty harmless.

A tank division getting through your lines is just a bunch of well-armored tractors with a limited supply of limited-application ammunition, seriously lacking in endurance and situational awareness. They can punch a few holes in your buildings, perhaps drive through a couple more, and that's it.

What you have to fear is a tank division with a trailing force of infantry that exploits the tank breakthrough. And the traditional answer to both is the same: pour indirect fire over the formations, be it ballistic or airborne. You won't get the tanks (hits are unlikely and near misses don't count), but the infantry will be dead in their wrecked APCs, IFVs or boots.

Which brings us to the one thing where tanks can make a difference: they can overrun your artillery and knock you out of the fight. But properly exploiting a tank breakthrough takes wits. After getting through, an army of drone tanks might just mill about trying to find hard targets to kill, achieving nothing real.

Today, and in the foreseeable future, drones must compensate for their stupidity by finding high ground. Airborne drones can survive as long as they loiter at such a distance that enemy AA guns and possible lasers can't reach them (and enemy missiles are too expensive to be used against them). The projected swarms of anti-tank flying drones would be of up-close-and-personal type, though - in danger of being overrun by tank breakthroughs, as their deployment systems are even more vulnerable than classic let alone tracked artillery. At best, they might hope to kill stupid automated tanks like the projected T14 development here.

What this "drone tank" stuff here is very good for, though, is putting all the vulnerable and dangerous bits of a tank well away from the smart crew. Battlefield resistance may go down like a lead balloon, but battlefield survivability takes a boost.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Romulan_spy]

Apparently, the tank "stalled" during the military parade:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32628236

I'm thinking the tank might still have some issues to iron out. I think it is too early to freak out that the Russians have beat us, if the tank can't even work properly in a parade.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Russia ain't building thousands of tanks while oil is $50 a barrel.

 

[Dryson]

Russia ain't building thousands of tanks while oil is $50 a barrel.

Are you sure that natural gas line from Russia into North Korea isn't secretly feeding that new baby?

 

[Dryson]

For armoured vehicles, a state of the art Surface to Missiles coupled with an excellent radar equipment, could counter drones.The Russians can fire an anti tank missile from the new tank's gun. Theoritically, they just need to design an anti aircraft missile designed to be fired from a tank gun.

Interesting thank you. In a hypothetical battle though, couldn't a swarm of drones not only out number but out maneuver a tank battalion?

In other words, 100 drones would easily pick off a group of tanks because of their numerical advantage and that they are in flight and not limited by terrain.

Also, of course tanks put human lives at risk - drones do not.

They could but a tank battalion would be reinforced with anti-combat drone hunting tanks. The only purpose the ACD would be to be track any incoming aircraft that would produce a signature based on the speed of a combat drone. Once the combat center of the ACD identified the drone it could deploy either anti-drone missiles which would be variants of the Stinger missile (U.S. made) that could be mounted on the tank or even towed in a special MLRS wagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System

Another weapons platform for the ACD would be the Mini-Gun that could be mounted to various tanks in the battalion to basically give the tank battalion the ability to attack incoming drones using line of site or being operated by a gunner watching the sky for incoming combat drones.

The Mini Gun variant would be a lot cheaper to produce and maintain but would increase the mortality rate of the tanks of the battalion thus reducing the ground effectiveness of the battalion as whole.

The second variant of the Mini Gun would be a rudimentary acquisition and fire control system aboard the tank that when combat drones have been spotted by an advanced party operating on the perimeter of the tank battalion sweeping the area for hostile forces the ACD gunner would switch for her or his primary duty to manning the Mini Gun system from inside of the tank.

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

To counter the ACD Tank either specialized ground units or Combat Drones would have to be designed to track and locate the ACD Tank to either take it out with conventional infantry maneuvers or by using ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) to disrupt the ability of the ACD to get a good lock on the combat drone and then either knock the tank out or capture it.

Tanks and infantry are still the most important factor for any military. You can use ten thousand drones to attack a city but if you the entire city has Stinger missile systems those drones aren't worth a hill of Moonshine. Tanks support the city the invading infantry attack on the city while the troops go in and eliminate the hostile forces of the city that can move around through pipes and underground systems to avoid detection. Areas where aerial combat drones cannot access.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Russia ain't building thousands of tanks while oil is $50 a barrel.

Are you sure that natural gas line from Russia into North Korea isn't secretly feeding that new baby?

Are you really suggesting that Russia is making a lot of money from selling gas to... North Korea?

 

[USS Triumphant]

Is this a psy-op? Tanks are next to useless in the age of drones and other over-the-horizon weaponry that can get above them without risk to pilots and blow the crap out of them. What *wouldn't* be useless to the Russians would be if this announcement caused some of our Cold Warriors in Congress and/or the Pentagon to decide that we need to blow money on one-uping this tank, when we *should* be focused on *effective* upgrades while streamlining our military and its budget.

 

[Tiger Devil Dog]

Is this a psy-op? Tanks are next to useless in the age of drones and other over-the-horizon weaponry that can get above them without risk to pilots and blow the crap out of them. What *wouldn't* be useless to the Russians would be if this announcement caused some of our Cold Warriors in Congress and/or the Pentagon to decide that we need to blow money on one-uping this tank, when we *should* be focused on *effective* upgrades while streamlining our military and its budget.

Tanks are not much of a problem for countries like the US and it's NATO allies. They're more than effective for fighting the likes of Georgia and Ukraine. Also, drones aren't a cure all for. None of the drones currently in service are designed to fight in a high threat environment like we would face in a war with Russia. The Predator carries the hellfire missile that can kill a tank but it would more than likely be shot down before it got the chance. And the term "drone" is a misnomer. They have pilots, they just sit in a trailer instead of a cockpit. The current unmanned aerial vehicles do absolutely nothing without human input. Tanks are still very much a part of modern warfare. In full scale ground war with Russia, which is a ridiculous notion on its face, the bulk of our air power would not be dedicated to killing tanks. Our heavy bombers and cruise missiles would destroying strategic targets far behind the front. Smaller strike aircraft and our own tanks would be fighting Russian tanks. The terrain such a war would be fought on is also much different than the deserts of Iraq. Target location and identification would be exponentially more challenging. Tanks aren't going away anytime soon.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Is this a psy-op? Tanks are next to useless in the age of drones and other over-the-horizon weaponry

When is the last time America went to war with somebody who had drones and over-the-horizon weaponry? For that matter, when is the last time RUSSIA did this?

 

[sojourner]

Another weapons platform for the ACD would be the Mini-Gun that could be mounted to various tanks in the battalion to basically give the tank battalion the ability to attack incoming drones using line of site or being operated by a gunner watching the sky for incoming combat drones.

The Mini Gun variant would be a lot cheaper to produce and maintain but would increase the mortality rate of the tanks of the battalion thus reducing the ground effectiveness of the battalion as whole.

The second variant of the Mini Gun would be a rudimentary acquisition and fire control system aboard the tank that when combat drones have been spotted by an advanced party operating on the perimeter of the tank battalion sweeping the area for hostile forces the ACD gunner would switch for her or his primary duty to manning the Mini Gun system from inside of the tank.

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

Congratulations! You've just reinvented the Phalanx weapons system!

 

[T'Girl]

In other words, 100 drones would easily pick off a group of tanks because of their numerical advantage and that they are in flight and not limited by terrain.

And if a armored unit is accompanied by a equal (or superior) number of "anti-drone drones?"

Force counter-force. There's no reason a drone can not carry air to air missiles, and drones are extremely soft targets.

 

[publiusr]

And if a armored unit is accompanied by a equal (or superior) number of "anti-drone drones?"...drones are extremely soft targets.

I think you might like this

http://www.popularmechanics.com/fli...spatches-a-net-carrying-bully-drone-to-catch/


Spotter's guide
http://laughingsquid.com/drone-survival-guide-a-poster-with-tips-for-spotting-and-evading-drones/

 

[EmoBorg]

The Russians debut their new tank at their 70th Victory parade.

Russian Armata T-14 main battle tank debuts at Moscow's V-Day parade