Jump to content
Marko

Question about the T-14/15 featured in the update

Recommended Posts

I was wondering what source of information/Intel was used for the model built by Esim.

Did you use official Uralvagonzavod statistics.

Or a Educated Guess for some of the fire control specs. Etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marko said:

I was wondering what source of information/Intel was used for the model built by Esim.

Did you use official Uralvagonzavod statistics.

Or a Educated Guess for some of the fire control specs. Etc

 

Obviously  data published  in open sources was used to some extent, but it is important to keep in mind, that it doesn't cover all aspects and there is a plenty doubtful stuff floats around. Luckily,  T-14 and T-15 are not that new at component level as most people may think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Obviously  data published  in open sources was used to some extent, but it is important to keep in mind, that it doesn't cover all aspects and there is a plenty doubtful stuff floats around. Luckily,  T-14 and T-15 are not that new at component level as most people may think.

From what i have managed to read about the T-14/15 

I am under no illusions about its capability's it is a revolutionary design in some ways.

But its not a super tank it has weaknesses like every other platform.

Many of its new components are problematic, as is the case with most new designs

But its long range engagement capability intrigues me 

Its the first Russian design i know of  that can match western designs in key areas like Thermals ballistic computer etc

Its Armour values also intrigue me the hull/crew compartment seems impressive but the turret does not seem to have equal protection levels 

It seem to rely on in active and passive protection systems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the looks of it, the turret seems to be sacrificial. autocannon/60s-70s era APFSDS front protection at most.

although newer information suggests that the production vehicles might be heavier than the prototypes.

the active protection system is for the entire vehicle, not just the turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official weight for T-14 and T-15 provided is 55 metric tons. Obviously this means that due to smaller internal volume at such weight, T-14 have superior protection over T-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

Official weight for T-14 and T-15 provided is 55 metric tons. Obviously this means that due to smaller internal volume at such weight, T-14 have superior protection over T-15.

well, not neccesarily, given that the turret of the T-15 is smaller and is made from thinner plates, and doesn't have the large turret power supplies, autoloader, and such. 

also T-15 engine can double as armour protection, similar to how the merkava engine doubles as protection. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious about the situation awareness around this tank as far as sighting systems. How are the crew going to see when it is in an engagement in dusty areas, low muddy areas and etc.Since the cameras are mounted to the hull. Also what happens when this tank takes a direct hit as far as what if the sighting systems are knocked out. Crew is exposed to the front and limited on movements? Also how can this tank APS defend against incoming round coming from the direct front without causing some sort of damage to the MRS system or gun tube itself. What about if the loading mechanism has a mechanical failure during battle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechanical failures of the loading system in an unmanned turret can obviously not be solved by the crew without exposing themselves. Tactically that means to pull back one vehicle. In and of itself I don't see that as such a big problem, you have similar issues with other malfunctions on tanks with a manned turret too - just not specifically with the gun loading mechanism.

As far as fragmentation effects are concerned, we suspect that the fragmentation is directed in a cone, and more or less firing from above/forward of the attacking projectile to minimize collateral damage. It may not be entirely risk-free, but in combat, what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Assassin 7 said:

I am curious about the situation awareness around this tank as far as sighting systems. How are the crew going to see when it is in an engagement in dusty areas, low muddy areas and etc.Since the cameras are mounted to the hull. Also what happens when this tank takes a direct hit as far as what if the sighting systems are knocked out. Crew is exposed to the front and limited on movements? Also how can this tank APS defend against incoming round coming from the direct front without causing some sort of damage to the MRS system or gun tube itself. What about if the loading mechanism has a mechanical failure during battle? 

the crew has 6 small cameras  mounted on the turret(not hull) to provide SA, in addition to the commanders independent sight. 

each of the cameras has a small tube which probably sprays the lenses clean when they get dirty. there's also vision blocks on the hull, and an extra camera for the driver. 

if the main sight is knocked out, it's pretty much like on any other tank. the TC's sight might double as a backup sight, and there's possibly a small backup camera somewhere as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Mechanical failures of the loading system in an unmanned turret can obviously not be solved by the crew without exposing themselves. Tactically that means to pull back one vehicle. In and of itself I don't see that as such a big problem, you have similar issues with other malfunctions on tanks with a manned turret too - just not specifically with the gun loading mechanism.

As far as fragmentation effects are concerned, we suspect that the fragmentation is directed in a cone, and more or less firing from above/forward of the attacking projectile to minimize collateral damage. It may not be entirely risk-free, but in combat, what is?

I was just curious, from experience I personally have kicked breech block arms and cams when jammed to allow the breech to come up during gunnery to finish the table. Also have removed the afcap deflector during wartime just to keep the Breech operating. Also I highly doubt that the APS would be able to defeat any projectile coming directly towards the front of the T-14 Turret. I also believe that the T-14 would have an hard time fighting in some types of terrain due to its surrounding sighting capabilities 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

the crew has 6 small cameras  mounted on the turret(not hull) to provide SA, in addition to the commanders independent sight. 

each of the cameras has a small tube which probably sprays the lenses clean when they get dirty. there's also vision blocks on the hull, and an extra camera for the driver. 

if the main sight is knocked out, it's pretty much like on any other tank. the TC's sight might double as a backup sight, and there's possibly a small backup camera somewhere as well. 

Ok thanks for clarifying the cameras deal, hopefully if the Turret gets hit directly it will not effect the cameras 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

Also I highly doubt that the APS would be able to defeat any projectile coming directly towards the front of the T-14 Turret.

Why not? The 5 pairs of Afghanit launchers (the big tubes under the "cheeks" of the turret) are evenly spread across the front of the tank, with one pair straight forward and the rest progressively angled wider:

 

640px-9may2015Moscow-06.jpg

 

There's also the two rotating smoke grenade launchers and another 12 grenades pointed straight up for the "soft kill" APS, aka multi-spectral smoke.

Edited by Rotareneg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

Why not? The 5 pairs of Afghanit launchers (the big tubes under the "cheeks" of the turret) are evenly spread across the front of the tank, with one pair straight forward and the rest progressively angled wider:

 

640px-9may2015Moscow-06.jpg

 

There's also the two rotating smoke grenade launchers and another 12 grenades pointed straight up for the "soft kill" APS, aka multi-spectral smoke.

Sorry, should have been more precise about the ammunition . I mean rounds such as APFDS and HEAT fired from a Tank. I could see ATGM’s or missiles fired from a distance be defeated. But yeah your right as far as the soft kill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Also about this video: 

when fired the guy looks to have the handles pressed but looking from the outside it looks like the gun is not stabilized. Do anyone know if the tank goes automatically into a reload or does a command need to be given? If so there might be a manual type mode?

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

Sorry, should have been more precise about the ammunition . I mean rounds such as APFDS and HEAT fired from a Tank.

If you believe that Afganit can defeat the HEAT warhead of an ATGM, then why not that of a HEAT round coming out of a gun tube?

Both have a similar radar signature, the different velocity will require a different timing for the release of the intercept grenade, and of course the defeated projectile will still retain its kinetic energy (like an incoming ATGM).

 

APFSDS rounds, they are a different issue of course. The way I understand it, the basic idea is to induce a yaw moment on the attacking profile through the interceptor's blast wave. Long rod penetrators work best when impacting with no yaw at all, even 1 or 2° can already cost you a sizable fraction of the peak performance. Combine this with reactive armor that might even be based on cutting shaped charges (as seen on the T-84 "Oplot", FEX) you might be able to cut a total of 10...15% of the long rod's performance, which might in turn be just enough for the (still considerable) passive armor array to defeat the impacting projectile. The APS isn't designed to defeat APFSDS in total, just to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

If you believe that Afganit can defeat the HEAT warhead of an ATGM, then why not that of a HEAT round coming out of a gun tube?

Both have a similar radar signature, the different velocity will require a different timing for the release of the intercept grenade, and of course the defeated projectile will still retain its kinetic energy (like an incoming ATGM).

 

APFSDS rounds, they are a different issue of course. The way I understand it, the basic idea is to induce a yaw moment on the attacking profire through the intercept's blast wave. Long rod penetrators work best when impacting with no yaw at all, even 1 or 2° can already cost you a sizable fraction of the peak performance. Combine this with reactive armor that might even be based on cutting shaped charges (as seen on the T-84 "Oplot", FEX) you might be able to cut a total of 10...15% of the long rod's performance, which might in turn be just enough for the (still considerable) passive armor array to defeat the impacting projectile. The APS isn't designed to defeat APFSDS in total, just to help.

Ok so if it’s capable of defeating projectiles coming in at the front how far does it launch a defense projectile? The reason I said projectiles from a tank is that they are not wire or user guided to targets such as a TOW. So the user would be blinded by the smoke and the tank could move. Not sure how it would stop a top attack missile. Can you explain how it would if it’s allowed? 

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

Ok so if it’s capable of defeating projectiles coming in at the front how far does it launch a defense projectile? The reason I said projectiles from a tank is that they are not wire or user guided to targets such as a TOW. So the user would be blinded by the smoke and the tank could move. Not sure how it would stop a top attack missile. Can you explain how it would if it’s allowed? 

The APS effector "attacks" the projektile with blast ans shrapnell effects...so the type of round and guidance is irrelevant.

 

As long as the radar can detect and incomming missle and has effectors that can engage upwards, it can also intercept top-attack missles.

 

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grenny said:

The APS effector "attacks" the projektile with blast ans shrapnell effects...so the type of round and guidance is irrelevant.

 

As long as the radar can detect and incomming missle and has effectors that can engage upwards, it can also intercept top-attack missles.

 

Similar to this correct?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DoN8HNWhS60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/11/2019 at 12:14 PM, Grenny said:

The APS effector "attacks" the projektile with blast ans shrapnell effects...so the type of round and guidance is irrelevant.

 

As long as the radar can detect and incomming missle and has effectors that can engage upwards, it can also intercept top-attack missles.

 

 

From what I've read most aps purpose is stricktly in ration to ground basedAnt itank Top attack missiles like the javelin etc?

 

I've always wondered if aps would also have any affect in stopping or at least partially degrading guided muntions fired from fixed wing aircraft like agm65 maverick which travels los, or against a laser guided bomb ( which would come from "top down") 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason why an APS couldn't, "in principle", also shoot upwards. Whether a specific system actually does is a different question, of course. But it is important to understand that APSs are no miraculous "force field" from a Star Trek future. They usually reduce the strength of an attacking HEAT warhead by damaging the charge, and potentially leading to a premature detonation which increases the standoff range. But the residual energy of the attacking projectile still requires a passive armor array of sufficient strength, and for the top sector of armored vehicles that is usually not the case. This create a certain limit against what type of top attacks an APS could actually substantially contribute. And that is probably the reason why known APSs - as far as I am informed - do not protect against top attack munitions with hardkill effectors. To the extent that the sensors of the vehicle can identify a threat from the top (a guidance laser, say) softkill systems such as Shtora and Galix create a smoke screen to the top sector as well. The vehicle would still have to maneuver out of its current position, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was put on Tank-net in 2015 from a translated Russian Document. They say this is the Afghanit System or similar 

 

Tank-net link: http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39816&page=9

 

 

The invention relates to the field of military technology, in particular to the protection of armored targets from anti-tank weapons. The invention consists in that the system includes a protective ammunition and the processing and control system complex. Protective munition is designed as the warhead with a cumulative funnel with a large opening angle for the formation of damaging elements such as "the core of shock." Ammunition set on turning in two planes based on the perimeter of the protected object or above and is associated with process control system complex. Warhead has displaced along the surface of the funnel cumulative point of detonation. The implementation of the invention makes it possible to increase the speed and efficiency of complex weapons systems active protection.

The invention relates to the field of military technology, in particular to the protection of armored targets from anti-tank weapons.

Known automatic active protection of armored objects:

British tank missile system TAMS company "Marconi";

Israeli "warning system about the threat of attack" tank "Merkava MK3";

American "system of active tank protection" (complex SLID);

domestic complexes "Thrush" and "Arena".

In general, the active protection system consists of detection systems for information processing and control and weapons systems.

The basis of the system is the lightweight column book-rests TAMS system with 1-kW servo, which installed two radar company "Marconi" and the weapon system in the form of two paired 7.62-mm machine gun rate of 1200 rds. / Min. The maximum effective range of the TAMS is in the range of 600-900 m, and 400 rounds of ammunition boeukladki enough for 20 attacks (20 shots on the rocket).

The Israeli "Warning System about the threat of attack" tank "Merkava" target detected at a distance of 20-25 m from the tank electro-optical sensors mounted on the upper surface of the machine body along its perimeter and is amazed at some distance from the tank means to counter. Weapons system is launchers for shooting on a signal from a missile detection system (grenades) or with high-explosive fragmentation warhead.Launchers are located on the perimeter of the hull.

The American defeat the purpose of the complex SLID made small-sized guided missile - interceptor. Range projectile hitting a target SLID is 100 meters from the protected armored vehicle.

Some of the considered KAZ proven effective with respect to anti-tank and anti-tank grenades (GHG) emissions. Probability of hitting anti-tank and PG-known complexes of more than 0.7. Due to different designs of ammunition, fuses and various locations in the case of combat units of ammunition are not always high-explosive ammunition protective action leads to hitting the target.In some cases the action of the protective ammunition triggers the forward ammunition trajectory to form a cumulative jet. If the cumulative funnel remains intact, the cumulative impact of the jet on the object to be protected can be sufficient for its destruction, in particular, if the protected object - Machine light weight category.

In addition, these weapons systems KAZ generally not effective against armor-piercing ammunition. This is primarily due to the high velocity of ammunition, their stability in flight, a relatively large mass and a small cross-sectional area.

All weapon systems KAZ characterized by low speed, low speed due to the delivery of protective ammunition at a meeting with a purpose.

The closest to the technical nature of the proposed system is the domestic weapons complex of active protection "Drozd" / 1 /. The complex of active protection "Drozd" weapons system is a four paired bronebloka at an angle of 20 degrees. to each other. Each broneblok serves a sector of 20 degrees. As a protective charge used 107 mm high-explosive shells, undermining the team which comes from the remote time-fuse at a distance of about 7 m from the protected machine.

The disadvantage of this weapon system is the low efficiency when exposed to armor-piercing projectiles, as well as low speed due to the low speed of delivery to the point of meeting of the protective ammunition.

The aim of the present invention is to increase the speed and effectiveness of the weapons complex active protection.

The goal is achieved in that the weapon system is used as a protective munition warhead with a cumulative funnel with a large opening angle, which operates on the principle of "shock core" and mounted on a rotary basis, associated with the control system of the complex protection.

The principle of operation of the proposed weapon system is as follows. After the start of the detection system to accompany the purpose and define its parameters, the signal from the system of processing and control goes to the actuator pivot base, which begins work at the direction of the goal in two planes. The estimated time for the fuse protective ammunition supplied control signal and is its subversion. As a result, it undermines formed striking element - the "core of shock", which, depending on the intended use, may have a diameter of 30-40 cm and armor-piercing capacity of up to 50-80 mm monolithic steel armor average hardness.

The speed of the striking element reaches 2-3 km / s. Thus, the point of intersection killing agent will be delivered in time than in all known systems (bullet speed - 900 m / s, the velocity of the munition KAZ "thrush" - 120 m / s), and therefore, the proposed technical solution allows improve the performance of complex active protection.

Compared with the prototype hit the striking element - "the core of shock" - in GHG ATGM or armor-piercing projectiles lead to its complete defeat. Estimates show that in this case, the residual effect of armor-piercing ammunition striker will be completely absent.

This system allows the weapons hit the target at different distances from the object to be protected and can be used with such a complex weapon system even on light armored vehicles.

To increase the angle of the area affected cumulative funnel advisable to choose from a range of 120-160 degrees.

The proposed system of arms can be incorporated into an object around its perimeter or taken out on the object.

Compared to existing weapons systems, the use of the proposed system would require increasing the accuracy of determining the coordinates of the target, which currently is not technical difficulties. Adjustment of the direction of flight submunitions when it is carried out to undermine further by changing the place of initiation of the protective ammunition. To do this, the protective ammunition (combat unit operating on the principle of "shock core") has several points of initiation, placed at various locations relative to the cumulative ammunition lining.

The main advantages of the proposed technical solution to a known high speed due to high delivery rate of submunitions "shock core" to the point of meeting for the purpose, as well as increased efficiency due to the destruction of any weapons of his great armor penetration, even when using the cumulative facing with a large opening angle.

The proposed solution allows to multiply charged KAZ weapons system that ensures the protection of the sample almost all areas with a significant decrease in weight of the weapon system.

Sources of information

1. Encyclopedia of tanks 1915-2000 biennium. Comp. Holyavsky GL Minsk, OOO "Harvest", 1998 - 576 p.

CLAIMS

Weapon system active protection system, which includes a protective ammunition and a processing system and control complex, characterized in that the shield is designed as a munition warhead with a cumulative funnel with a large opening angle to form the striking element type "hammer core" set on turning in two planes Based on the perimeter of the protected object or above and associated with the system processing and control of the complex, while the warhead is displaceable over the surface of the funnel cumulative point of detonation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

They say this is the Afghanit System or similar 

Well, they say... But It is not  Afganit, which is supposed to be  rather conservative   successor of Drozd-2. If  APS relies on  EFPs or MEFPs to defeat threat, then design of the launchers will be absolutely different.

Edited by Jartsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Well, they say... But It is not  Afganit, which is supposed to be  rather conservative   successor of Drozd-2. If  APS relies on  EFPs or MEFPs to defeat threat, then design of the launchers will be absolutely different.

Understood thanks for the information 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...