Captain_Colossus Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 The liabilities that smaller states might have to suffer from obtaining Nuke capabilities are little. The gains they instantly achieve are immeasurable, and permanent.There is little if any evidence at all that it works this way. Consider how many non-nuclear states have defied the will of the United States, a nuclear super power- if the US decided to use force on them, it's always conventional.If Lichtenstein suddenly acquired nuclear weapons, it's not as if suddenly they have gained lots of respect as a major player, what it does in fact is increase their potential problems substantially as nuclear enemies can now legitimately reserve their nuclear weapons against them. Many states could probably develop nuclear weapons and would still choose not to, for it doesn't afford them anything more, but it does make them legitimate targets for nuclear weapons. North Korea is a supposed nuclear power, and it doesn't mean that the US or South Korea necessarily change their policies, it doesn't actually give them anything that their conventional forces haven't been doing for decades. It has helped to bankrupt them in acquiring them, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 and an interesting post from Themess.nethttp://themess.net/forum/military-discussion/10686-russian-tank-armata-revealed?p=11813#post11813http://forumimage.ru/show/102174105АФАР 4шт. - AESA, 4 unitsПУ КАЗ - APS launcherБлок дистанционного управления поражающими элементами КАЗ - APS interceptors remote controllerПриёмники ЛИ 4 шт. (по 2 с каждого борта) - laser beam detectors, 4 units, 2 per each sidehttp://forumimage.ru/show/102174108Комплекс постановки активных помех - Active countermeasures complexБлок дистанционного обнаружения/управления КАЗ - APS remote detector/controllerТВ камера - TV camerahttp://sg.uploads.ru/H6Oyt.jpg..Claims that those vertical cells are APS against top-attack threats like Javelin or Spike..Claims, that those smoke grenades launchers can be used as APS, because they can rotate (lolwut?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skybird03 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 North Korea is a supposed nuclear power, and it doesn't mean that the US or South Korea necessarily change their policies, it doesn't actually give them anything that their conventional forces haven't been doing for decades. It has helped to bankrupt them in acquiring them, though.It only makes a real criminal and inhumane badass regime untouchable and gives it card blanche to export its evil to all world. Dictators like this have the habit to not be shy to pull down everybody along with them if one is going for their throat: if their people canot fight successful to make them master stay, the people does not deserve to live. And so they go boooom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 10, 2015 Members Share Posted May 10, 2015 Make your own thread, please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) Found some good pics and a video of the amarta Well worth a look.Trying to find out more about its active protection systemWondering if its good enough to stop a hellfire missile.http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html Edited May 11, 2015 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Found some good pics and a video of the amarta Well worth a look.Trying to find out more about its active protection systemWondering if its good enough to stop a hellfire missile.http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.htmlLooks like it uses a soft-kill against top attacks (assuming the smaller ones are some sort of multi spectral smoke).http://forumimage.ru/show/102174108 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I just realized that all the sensors in a less armored and larger turret. It would be easier than going after the crew. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumituisku Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Yea. I agree.So am I all mistaken that heat or MPAT to turret could make t-14 nearly useless to fight with?Thought I do wonder.. if and how many back up systems they have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Yea. I agree.So am I all mistaken that heat or MPAT to turret could make t-14 nearly useless to fight with?Thought I do wonder.. if and how many back up systems they have.a HEAT or MPAT to the turret would disable it. however, for a HEAT or MPAT to hit the turret, you'd have to go through the APS first. the large system looks like DROZD-2http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/drozd.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 a HEAT or MPAT to the turret would disable it. however, for a HEAT or MPAT to hit the turret, you'd have to go through the APS first. Unless you use HESH which are "top attack" munitions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Unless you use HESH which are "top attack" munitions. ???? Since when? 76mm HESH fired from a Scorpion isn't top attack, nor is 105mm HESH fired from the L7. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 14, 2015 Members Share Posted May 14, 2015 Unless you use HESH which are "top attack" munitions. If you're alluding to the steep trajectory - no, HESH is not. Try out a 3,500m shot on a static target in SB Pro and in the AAR look at the impact vector. It's notably pointing upwards (and that in itself is somewhat remarkable in comparison to other munitions) but even then the falling angle is still way, way below 45°. EVEN IF it were close to 60° or so (making it practically useless to hit a target with a purely ballistic projectile at pretty much any range) I bet that the active defense system's sensors would still be able to detect it, and chances are that a lump of plastic explosives falling from the sky is susceptible enough to hardkill countermeasures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 a HEAT or MPAT to the turret would disable it. however, for a HEAT or MPAT to hit the turret, you'd have to go through the APS first. the large system looks like DROZD-2http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/drozd.htmlEVEN IF it were close to 60° or so (making it practically useless to hit a target with a purely ballistic projectile at pretty much any range) I bet that the active defense system's sensors would still be able to detect it, and chances are that a lump of plastic explosives falling from the sky is susceptible enough to hardkill countermeasures.If it is DROZD-2, it can't defeat main gun rounds because they are above the maximum incoming speed limit. I have to question its capability to counter plunging fire because it's essentially a giant shotgun and limited in direction to where a tube is pointing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 If it is DROZD-2, it can't defeat main gun rounds because they are above the maximum incoming speed limit. I have to question its capability to counter plunging fire because it's essentially a giant shotgun and limited in direction to where a tube is pointing.Actually modified Drozd-series APS already demonstrated feasibility to defeat hypervelocity KE ammo(not speaking about CE stuff), this is not widely known, but already happened. T-14 doesn`t use Drozd or Drozd-2, but a further development of their concept and its ability to counter main gun ammo is said to be a primary feature; time will show, is this true or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I just realized that all the sensors in a less armored and larger turret. It would be easier than going after the crew.Where does the "less armored" part come from? Is this an assumption or did something come out from the Russians about it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 14, 2015 Members Share Posted May 14, 2015 Yes, "less armor" does not necessarily mean "less armored". There's much less internal volume which alone saves you literally tons of armor without necessarily sacrificing protection. But of course the emphasis on frontal protection may no longer apply, and you don't have to protect the weapon at all cost if you can replace it with comparative ease.If the Russian army puts a higher emphasis on crew survival this will certainly influence the protection priorities somewhat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I wonder if there are plans for CR-2 Leo-2 M1A2 to have active protection Systems fittedThe Israelis have the trophy system fitted. I would speculate all the big military's have Developed or are in the process of developing some type of system.The increase in protection for the crew and with MBT costing many millions per unit Its a justifiable expense. IMO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I wonder if there are plans for CR-2 Leo-2 M1A2 to have active protection Systems fittedThe Israelis have the trophy system fitted. I would speculate all the big military's have Developed or are in the process of developing some type of system.The increase in protection for the crew and with MBT costing many millions per unit Its a justifiable expense. IMOBritain isn't fighting anyone at the minute that would justify the expense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Britain isn't fighting anyone at the minute that would justify the expense.According to janes.The CR-2 is scheduled for some upgraded components, the warrior is in the process of Getting a new turret and other upgrades if active protection systems are effective then It is justifiable to do it sooner rather then later. its cheaper in the long runThis is the conclusion the Israelis came to after heavy losses in LebanonThey were shocked at how effective some of the then latest Russian RPG/ ATGM's were. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 15, 2015 Members Share Posted May 15, 2015 I wonder if there are plans for CR-2 Leo-2 M1A2 to have active protection Systems fittedLeo 2 EVO for Singapore... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Where does the "less armored" part come from? Is this an assumption or did something come out from the Russians about it?"Less Armored" came from the question, "Is it probable the armor protection levels of the turret are equal to their last generation?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Interesting articlehttp://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2014/12/10_a_6336601.shtml 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D u k e Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Servus,pictures of the driver place:https://twitter.com/pfc_joker/status/598968114936737792/photo/1cheersD u k e 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Analysis of Russia's new armoured fighting vehicles by IHS Jane's 360: http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution?utm_campaign=%5bPMP%5d_PC5308_J360%2020.05.2015%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Analysis of Russia's new armoured fighting vehicles by IHS Janes 360: http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution?utm_campaign=%5bPMP%5d_PC5308_J360%2020.05.2015%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=EloquaNice find Panzer_Leader. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.