rump Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 A somewhat similar concept from Ukraine:6gHOToPckCI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Compared to T-90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Well that's going to have a swag of log implications.Do they need new trucks/trailers to carry them?Does it still fit on a rail car?... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Well that's going to have a swag of log implications.Do they need new trucks/trailers to carry them? Does it still fit on a rail car? ... Well if there smart enough to build a new tank They probably figured out all the transportation issues as well How do you think they got to red square for the parade. Plus there is a video knocking around with the T-14/15 being unloaded from a low loader. Edited May 28, 2015 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Well if there smart enough to build a new tankThey probably figured out all the transportation issues as wellHow do you think they got to red square for the parade.Plus there is a video knocking around with the T-14/15 being unloaded from a low loader.You would think so but the Russo-Georgian War showed their strategic lift was not able to move on immediate notice. They always did have more teeth than tail in their army. Just by virtue of it being larger and heavier will cause problems somewhere.P.S. Neat tool for measuring on screen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Bigger target. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktyjr1251 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Has anyone even considered the failed MBT-70 design with the crew capsule? According to tests, it was horrible; leaving the crew disoriented and so forth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Has anyone even considered the failed MBT-70 design with the crew capsule? According to tests, it was horrible; leaving the crew disoriented and so forth.Valid point, But the technology has moved on.Todays generation would be just as comfortable looking at a monitor then through a glass Optic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Valid point, But the technology has moved on.Todays generation would be just as comfortable looking at a monitor then through a glass Optic.The problem is, Russia's electro-optical industry has never been particularly good. For the T90 FCS, they had to go to France for a thermal sight.If nothing else, field of view, rapidity of effective slewing/scanning, and directional awareness (where the sensor is looking in relation to the hull/ map directions) badly suffers when relying solely on remote sensors. ...kind of like spotting things from the top or a real vehicle, versus playing SB (or any flight simulator): it's a heck of a lot harder spotting in-game. The human brain is wired to use the human eye, and does some self-stabilizing tricks that allow rapid, effective slewing that doesn't translate well to monitoring screens.(oh, and yes, I know that viewing through vision blocks has it's own share of issues, but it is still direct optics, and benefits from the eye-to-inner-ear linkage)On a semi-related note, I wonder if the proliferation of APS will lead to a renaissance of flechette rounds? Flechettes distributed from an airburst 50-60 meters away would be almost ideal for stripping a tank of APS: shred the (necessarily exposed and vulnerable) radars, and the APS becomes so much dead weight. I could even see HEAT rounds that have a forward compartment of flechette, with a HEAT warhead that follows the cloud of flechettes in to the target.... Edited August 2, 2015 by outontheop 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 1, 2015 Members Share Posted August 1, 2015 I would imagine that a radar sensor can distinguish between an incoming cloud of metal darts and a single ((still solid) projectile, so that only one counter-grenade would be projected (or none, if the flechette round disintegrates too early to trigger a response). Of course the subprojectiles might still destroy the radar sensor array. Even then the fact remains that an attacker must fire two or more rounds at the target in order to defeat the APS (provided that the APS is actually located on the target vehicle, which may not necessarily be the case). Even if those two rounds are being fired near-simultaneously from two different vehicles, the mere presence of the APS burdens the attacker with a substantial increase of effort for every single engagement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I would imagine that a radar sensor can distinguish between an incoming cloud of metal darts and a single ((still solid) projectile, so that only one counter-grenade would be projected (or none, if the flechette round disintegrates too early to trigger a response). Not the idea. The flechettes are not chaff, their purpose is to physically kill the radars (the weak link in the APS system)Of course the subprojectiles might still destroy the radar sensor array.Exactly. The idea is to have the flechette round (or flechette preliminary charge) detonate and disperse OUTSIDE the effective range of the APS munitions, and destroy the radars- ideally, outside the detection/ classification range of the radar. It's not necessary to fire two separate rounds, if (and this is a big "if") you can design a projectile that can both disperse flechettes forward in sufficient density to destroy the radars, AND contains a sufficient HEAT or other primary warhead. If the flechettes destroy the radar before it cues on the HEAT portion of the round (assuming it's a combined flechette/ HEAT- if that's even feasible to do, given the destabilization of trajectory that would result from dispersing and accelerating the flechettes), the APS may never even activate.Of course, there is also the potential for offensive EW to fool the radars into seeing incoming contacts and blowing off their munitions on a whole lot of empty airspace.As to the earlier question about M1s/ Leos and APS... yes, the west (I know the US and Israel, and I'd imagine Germany and UK as well) have developed APS.... they just haven't employed them much, because no threat so far has really required them. Kind of like there has been ERA available for ages, but until the M1 was required to fight in built-up areas, they didn't bother to mount them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 The problem is, Russia's electro-optical industry has never been particularly good. For the T90 FCS, they had to go to France for a thermal sight.If nothing else, field of view, rapidity of effective slewing/scanning, and directional awareness (where the sensor is looking in relation to the hull/ map directions) badly suffers when relying solely on remote sensors. ...kind of like spotting things from the top or a real vehicle, versus playing SB (or any flight simulator): it's a heck of a lot harder spotting in-game. The human eye is brain is wired to use the human eye, and does some self-stabilizing tricks that allow rapid, effective slewing that doesn't translate well to monitoring screens.(oh, and yes, I know that viewing through vision blocks has it's own share of issues, but it is still direct optics, and benefits from the eye-to-inner-ear linkage)On a semi-related note, I wonder if the proliferation of APS will lead to a renaissance of flechette rounds? Flechettes distributed from an airburst 50-60 meters away would be almost ideal for stripping a tank of APS: shred the (necessarily exposed and vulnerable) radars, and the APS becomes so much dead weight. I could even see HEAT rounds that have a forward compartment of flechette, with a HEAT warhead that follows the cloud of flechettes in to the target....Not disagreeing with your comments.But I remember watching a documentary about the Abram's replacement program.The US army built a test bed vehicle, with a low profile unmanned turret seemingly the US Army did some research on the effects of using monitors instead of optics They did mention the younger generation adapt very quickly party due to video games use Before they joined up. but I agree you cant beat the mark 1 eyeball. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Check out the Shorts Starstreak. It's a MANPAD but could be adapted to a surface role. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 2, 2015 Members Share Posted August 2, 2015 ... the west ... have developed APS.... they just haven't employed them much, because no threat so far has really required them.That's only part of the story. The other are legal implications of the robotized discharge of weapons against incoming munitions (or a radar spoof image) with the potential to maim or kill nearby, unprotected people, be they friendly soldiers or otherwise non-threatening population.Of course, ultimately it's a matter of the perceived threat level. APSs will be mounted when we fear our losses more than the possible blow-back in court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Not the idea. The flechettes are not chaff, their purpose is to physically kill the radars (the weak link in the APS system)Exactly. The idea is to have the flechette round (or flechette preliminary charge) detonate and disperse OUTSIDE the effective range of the APS munitions, and destroy the radars- ideally, outside the detection/ classification range of the radar. It's not necessary to fire two separate rounds, if (and this is a big "if") you can design a projectile that can both disperse flechettes forward in sufficient density to destroy the radars, AND contains a sufficient HEAT or other primary warhead. If the flechettes destroy the radar before it cues on the HEAT portion of the round (assuming it's a combined flechette/ HEAT- if that's even feasible to do, given the destabilization of trajectory that would result from dispersing and accelerating the flechettes), the APS may never even activate.Of course, there is also the potential for offensive EW to fool the radars into seeing incoming contacts and blowing off their munitions on a whole lot of empty airspace.As to the earlier question about M1s/ Leos and APS... yes, the west (I know the US and Israel, and I'd imagine Germany and UK as well) have developed APS.... they just haven't employed them much, because no threat so far has really required them. Kind of like there has been ERA available for ages, but until the M1 was required to fight in built-up areas, they didn't bother to mount them.shoulder launched flechette would be useful i suppose. one guy fires flechette, the other guy RPG, and ding dong the tank is dead. i guess HE-frag would have a similar effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 shoulder launched flechette would be useful i suppose. one guy fires flechette, the other guy RPG, and ding dong the tank is dead. i guess HE-frag would have a similar effect.It also makes me think that a combo between an autocannon (preferably HEAB ammo) and an arcing trajectory ATGM (not necessarily ballistic, but something that flies above the line of fire; preferably fire-and-forget) would be effective: 1) launch ATGM2) immediately follow ATGM launch with a burst of autocannon ammo to shred the radar while the missile is still in mid-trajectory3) ....4) Profit!IFVs would actually make comparatively good tank-hunters against APS-equipped AFVs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Why not just use a Javelin in top attack mode? The radars have a limited field of view in the vertical plane. Elevation of −6 and 20 degrees for Drozd and the T-14's system can't be much more. That's one huge blind spot. A Javelin can dive in at 45 degrees during the terminal phase. Plus it's uses a passive seeker so it would not set off any of the tanks detectors prior to the boom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Why not just use a Javelin in top attack mode? The radars have a limited field of view in the vertical plane. Elevation of −6 and 20 degrees for Drozd and the T-14's system can't be much more. That's one huge blind spot. A Javelin can dive in at 45 degrees during the terminal phase. Plus it's uses a passive seeker so it would not set off any of the tanks detectors prior to the boom.*maybe* it is elevation-limited. *Maybe*. There are vertically-mounted tubes. Regardless, whether T14 in particular has a blind spot high in the vertical axis, future APS systems likely will not. What tactics do you use then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) What is always forgotten: a constantly active mm-wave radar is like a big beacon lighting the tank up. Not in all type of enviroments something like that is adviseable. Esp if OPFOR has an airforce and arty-corps Edited August 3, 2015 by Grenny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjay Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 What is always forgotten: a constantly active mm-wave radar is like a big bacon... At last - confirmation that pigs CAN fly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 RPG-30 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.