Jump to content
kotplus

T-14 ARMATA new russian tank

Recommended Posts

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?

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

new-tank-russia.jpg.ee1e160a679b4f670d9a

new-tank-russia.jpg.ee1e160a679b4f670d9a

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by outontheop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the Shorts Starstreak. It's a MANPAD but could be adapted to a surface role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ATGM

2) immediately follow ATGM launch with a burst of autocannon ammo to shred the radar while the missile is still in mid-trajectory

3) ....

4) Profit!

IFVs would actually make comparatively good tank-hunters against APS-equipped AFVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is always forgotten: a constantly active mm-wave radar is like a big bacon...

At last - confirmation that pigs CAN fly. :)

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...