Leopard unable to kill Russian modern tanks?

[Invader ZIM]

Your forgetting about taking into account the actual quality of the Russian optical systems to even see let alone identify a valid target at 3 to 5 km to hit it with a slow ATGM.

Comparing a state of the art 3rd generation Thermal imaging staring focal planar array as used in an Abrams or Leopard 2 with quality supporting optics and image enhancement algorithms to render a usable image on the battlefield at up to 50x magnification is not the same as a Eastern European or downgraded export French Catherine thermal imager as used in the T-90 for example.

Not by a long shot.

https://youtu.be/3uRTJVrYbzw?t=1m18s

Target is a tank though the Catherine imager, can you even tell that's a static tank they set up for the test? It's just a blob of low res pixels in a field of low contrast and poorly regulated imagery lacking any algorithms to enhance the scene, it doesn't even have enough contrast to let the user know where the ground ends and the sky begins....

[Marko]

Your forgetting about taking into account the actual quality of the Russian optical systems to even see let alone identify a valid target at 3 to 5 km to hit it with a slow ATGM.

Comparing a state of the art 3rd generation Thermal imaging staring focal planar array as used in an Abrams or Leopard 2 with quality supporting optics and image enhancement algorithms to render a usable image on the battlefield at up to 50x magnification is not the same as a Eastern European or downgraded export French Catherine thermal imager as used in the T-90 for example.

Not by a long shot.

https://youtu.be/3uRTJVrYbzw?t=1m18s

Target is a tank though the Catherine imager, can you even tell that's a static tank they set up for the test? It's just a blob of low res pixels in a field of low contrast and poorly regulated imagery lacking any algorithms to enhance the scene, it doesn't even have enough contrast to let the user know where the ground ends and the sky begins....

Well they have certainly improved in newer model AFV's.

Looking forward to finding out what there going to use for the Amarta MBT/IFV

[Homer]

I'm genuinely curious about this system. There seems to be no information beyond spec sheets and videos. There isn't even a chest thumping claim for the longest tank to tank kill (which is incredibly weird for the internet). It's seems to be more effective as a feature in a sale brochure than actual use in the field.

[Marko]

I'm genuinely curious about this system. There seems to be no information beyond spec sheets and videos. There isn't even a chest thumping claim for the longest tank to tank kill (which is incredibly weird for the internet). It's seems to be more effective as a feature in a sale brochure than actual use in the field.

I can see it has potential on the battlefield in a number of roles

Air defence against gunships, long range bunker buster etc.

What I would like to know is how manoeuvrable is the missile once lunched.

And can it penetrate the frontal armour of a M1A2 or SEP. CR-2 leo-2A4/5/6

[Furia]

MC8e5KT8IDg

uECU83_XiKY

The technology is here. Russinas have been using the 9A4172 Vikhr from helicopters and airplanes for long time and using the skval system to designate and illuminate.

The israelis and other armies use laser guided missiles launched using the main gun.

So I guess a lot of people think it is good to have a weapon that outranges the enemy main weapon and as Marko mentioned can be used against helos.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Furia

[DarkLabor]

Original links :

How they should be put into the youtube tags in Steelbeasts.com posts:

[YOUTUBE]MC8e5KT8IDg[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]uECU83_XiKY[/YOUTUBE]

[Furia]

How they should be put into the youtube tags in Steelbeasts.com posts:

Really? I cannot find this information on the forum rules and guidelines. Would be so kind to refer me to the official post where this is written?

[Gibsonm]

I suspect this is just a question of misunderstanding.

I don't think DarkLabor was meaning "should" as in you will/must.

I think he was just saying "if you want your YouTube imagery to be visible within the thread, rather than loading the youtube site, you should reference them this way:"

I'm pretty sure there is no formal direction that all youtube imagery will be displayed this way.

I think its just that some/many embed the video links, while others may decide to just post the link, or aren't aware of the embed option.

[GSprocket]

Your forgetting about taking into account the actual quality of the Russian optical systems to even see let alone identify a valid target at 3 to 5 km to hit it with a slow ATGM.

Comparing a state of the art 3rd generation Thermal imaging staring focal planar array as used in an Abrams or Leopard 2 with quality supporting optics and image enhancement algorithms to render a usable image on the battlefield at up to 50x magnification is not the same as a Eastern European or downgraded export French Catherine thermal imager as used in the T-90 for example.

Not by a long shot.

https://youtu.be/3uRTJVrYbzw?t=1m18s

Target is a tank though the Catherine imager, can you even tell that's a static tank they set up for the test? It's just a blob of low res pixels in a field of low contrast and poorly regulated imagery lacking any algorithms to enhance the scene, it doesn't even have enough contrast to let the user know where the ground ends and the sky begins....

The Soviet Gun launched missiles aren't "slow" though, they are soft launched, then boosted to around the same velocity as an HE round (800m/s). This is more than twice the velocity of a TOW or similar weapon, and still much faster than e.g. Hellfire.

Hell, the average speed to 5km is higher than the 'post launch' speed of TOW and very close to that of Hellfire's maximum velocity.

Usability at these ranges is of course debatable... detection, acquisition, identification; clear LOS for the 17 seconds tof (plus time to lay prior to firing); storage conditions and failure rate (which is apparently significant).

Such a long range does permit flanking shots against 'safe' targets (at least until lessons are learnt), if and when conditions are favourable.

[Gibsonm]

Of course apart from the short term "fix" of bigger guns, better penetrators or tube launched ATGM there are also longer term capabilities that that becoming mature.

Both Laser and Railgun technology is begining to be worthwhile.

USS Ponce already mounts a laser turret. Albeit only a 33-kilowatt weapon. USN plans to increase this to 100-kilowatt.

USS Ponce is a trails platform with enough deck space etc to mount the weapon but newer vessels like the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class are being planned and built from the keel up to accommodate energy weapons.

The railgun fires a round at more than six times the speed of sound and has a planning range of 100nm+.

It is expected to be tested at sea next year.

Apart from the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class, it is planned to test it on a Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Now these are early steps and yes most of the test platforms are amphib or other vessels with the deck space and weight margin to take all the add on trial boxes and generate the energy required.

But this technology with evolve, improve and get smaller.

The M1 tank has been with us for what 1980? It has still has some 30 years or so planned life (cbt might change that).

In that 60yr life cycle (where aircraft went from non existent to the SR-71) I'm pretty sure these weapons will be able to easily fit on naval cbt vessels and get to the point where a mobile, protected ground vehicle (sound like something we know?) could mount one too.

Of course you still need good detection/sighting systems and good use of terrain can still mitigate some of this.

The tool/weapons change (rock, sword, arrow, musket, rifle, ...) but the effect they achieve remain constant (deter or if necessary, destroy the enemy's cbt power).

[Homer]

Really? I cannot find this information on the forum rules and guidelines. Would be so kind to refer me to the official post where this is written?

Bottom of page > Posting Rules > BB Code

For future reference, this is the common location for this sort of information for most forum software.

Here is the post announcing the new feature but it's buried within the Video thread. Not your fault for not seeing it but you could have asked about it when your noticed your vid posts were not displaying properly.

[Furia]

Bottom of page > Posting Rules > BB Code

For future reference, this is the common location for this sort of information for most forum software.

Here is the post announcing the new feature but it's buried within the Video thread. Not your fault for not seeing it but you could have asked about it when your noticed your vid posts were not displaying properly.

I did as suggested but I cannot see any difference on how the video is displayed on the forum as you can see here

MC8e5KT8IDg

uECU83_XiKY

[Gibsonm]

Well the difference to me at least is that your initial post was just a white box.

This second post has an image and a "play" button.

[Furia]

Hmm that is weird. I think I was able to visualize the video properly on my browser on my first post :c::c:

Anyway I will post them correctly from now on. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Lt DeFault]

Target is a tank though the Catherine imager, can you even tell that's a static tank they set up for the test? It's just a blob of low res pixels in a field of low contrast and poorly regulated imagery lacking any algorithms to enhance the scene, it doesn't even have enough contrast to let the user know where the ground ends and the sky begins....

To be fair, I've seen footage from American Apaches and AC-130s that looks like crap, as well. Of course, the pilot's view is much better, but for some reason the video recording is not of a very high resolution. Could that be possible here, too?

[Invader ZIM]

To be fair, I've seen footage from American Apaches and AC-130s that looks like crap, as well. Of course, the pilot's view is much better, but for some reason the video recording is not of a very high resolution. Could that be possible here, too?

If your talking about the older '91 footage from apache's and such, it's basically low res thermal coupled with lower res recording equipment, you certainly have a point, as well as the low res videos on Youtube from modern FLIR equipment being showcased.

Your correct that the actual pilot or driver's view might be better, but there's other limitations I'm seeing with the Russian gear. (For one, the output displays are much smaller in size, as well as their objective lenses, and thermal imagers actually require processors and program code to make a usable image unlike other night vision technologies. They are areas that Russia knows it is lacking in, hence the reason to purchase export Western gear for the job from France despite even that being downgraded.) The resolution and the pixel pitch of the detectors of the cameras being exported from Catherine also help determine the range of identification for the system without having to actually look through the system to get an idea of it's capabilities, and they don't quite compare head to head when put up against some of the Western FLIR and optical equipment on armored vehicles just yet.

Thanks for the link Marko, the video of the T-90 at 17:49 and again at 20:30 helps illustrate my point though, It's a standard CCTV camera view instead of an actual FLIR view in this case. The camera is relying on contrast to help lock on to targets, if you can degrade the image the camera sees with smoke, or try to lock up targets with a similar contrast from the background the crew would have a harder time locking up the targets I'd bet.

The FLIR view on the T-90 seems to be the one at 21:14 though, lower resolution than the CCTV view and set in black hot mode and firing at a skylined target, nice and easy to do. 22:24 is CCTV mode and showing pixel saturation and bleed in the presence of fire and explosions. This indicates a lack of real time processing for the output image to maintain a usable image under difficult conditions.

24:46 is CCTV camera locking onto a high contrast target.

Also speed is a relative thing, I meant slow in the sense that in the video of the T-80 using the gun launched missile above from Aria, it would have been quicker to engage with a HE or sabot round rather than the missile. But like you guys noted, it's probably useful against IFV's at range or being able to hit flanked armor.

I believe the T-90 is using this version of the Thales Catherine imager: https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinefc_uk_071005.pdf

Other Russian Thermal sights for Tanks here, note the use of "Buran" "Catherine" in the nomenclature for these export sights and the effective ranges to identify the target: http://www.photopribor.ck.ua/en/products/defense/equipment_for_armored_vehicles_control_systems/buran/

Of note is it's thermal sensitivity, of 70 millikelvin. This isn't very good by today's standards and means compared to to the same imager that has a sensitivity of 20 millikelvin, it may not see targets that the 20 millikelvin sensor could pick up.

By contrast, this is a Thales UK Thermal imager used for battlefield use. A Catherine MP: https://youtu.be/Y6kdmayrSSg I recommend trying to watch it in 720p resolution, but that won't do it justice since it's a 1k sensor that exceeds the youtube resolution on it's output display.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/Catherine_MP_MW_Datasheet.pdf Of note here is the 5km Identification range of a tank target, and a pixel pitch of 15 microns, that's very close to the theoretical limit of 12 microns that is achieved by U.S. systems using Vanadium oxide detectors currently.

[Furia]

I agree with you that most likely Russian sensors, cameras and thermals are not as good as Western.

We cannot hover judge from the imaginery avalaible on youtbe. I am still to see good quality leopard 2 EMES images on youtube but I know the real one has much better quality that whatever is on youtube.

But granted that Russian sensors are not of the same quality than Western ones, I do not think it is unbeliable or unrealistic that they can detect a 70 tons gas turbine Abrams generating a huge thermal signature at lets say 8 km if conditions and concealement help.

And then my point is that while the M1A2 would need to close the range to be able to fire its guns, the Russian vehicle would be able to fire 5 to 8 missiles on the meantime.

At the very minimum they would force you to get defensive or disrupt your deployment.

The israeli LAHAT have a range of 5000 meters fired from ground vehicles and 13000 if fired from helicopters.

cqssfjCFdMY

[Invader ZIM]

I can agree with you here, but your not taking into account terrain and how easy it can be to keep out of line of site to close with a known enemy position or just call in other assets to deal with a threat out of reach.

8km is really pushing the limits of detection, if you go by the brochure for the Catherine or Buran Catherine, it's maximum ability to ID a tank is at 2.0 to 2.5 km depending on conditions.

"And then my point is that while the M1A2 would need to close the range to be able to fire its guns, the Russian vehicle would be able to fire 5 to 8 missiles on the meantime.

At the very minimum they would force you to get defensive or disrupt your deployment."

And all the above goes out the window when trying to engage at 4 to 5km on multiple targets throwing multispectral smoke and maneuvering over uneven terrain that isn't a flat plateau. The other bad part of this is that with the M829A3 an M1A2 with 25 to 50x thermal magnification has a pretty decent chance of hitting your tanks at 4km with a sabot so I think keeping a steady track on them is going to be more difficult than the ideal situation.

The israeli LAHAT have a range of 5000 meters fired from ground vehicles and 13000 if fired from helicopters.

That's cool, the U.S. Mid range munition had similar results: https://youtu.be/nFwd5sBNbjA

Here's video from the seeker head of the MRM-CE when it hit the T-72: https://youtu.be/ZdH_i5T40GE

http://www.deagel.com/Projectiles/XM1111-Mid-Range-Munition_a001136001.aspx

The MRM-KE projectile uses a semi-active laser seeker for cooperative targeting, a millimeter wave seeker to autonomously acquire and track a given target, and impulse thrusters provide maneuverability to acquire, track and perform a direct hit against targets at 7.5 miles and beyond. The projectile uses a ballistic trajectory to reach the target area, then the thrusters will direct it to score a direct hit. A rocket booster accelerates the projectile to supersonic velocity before the impact aiding the long rod penetrator to pierce the target's armor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition

September 2006: A U.S. M1 tank fired an MRM-CE round which hit a moving T-72 tank at a range of 8,600 meters.

We have the technology.

[Furia]

Of course the technology exist and the reason is not used is because budget cuts.

In 2006 sounded like not a bad idea

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20060929.aspx

And in my oppinion still is a good idea despite all the issues you mentioned.

And if they perfect it a bit you can have systems like the fire and forget ATGM missiles fired from tanks and that would be quite useful.

They can even engage concealed targets out of LOS

XdDOHgcLGRI

This way you do not even have to worry about the frontal armor of your enemy :luxhello:

More punch for the buck :cool3:

[Invader ZIM]

Yea, I agree, would have liked to have seen the program go further. Systems like Spike I think are the way to go. Non line of sight, diving and top attack trajectory that can reach out to 8km is attractive.

[Marko]

Of course the technology exist and the reason is not used is because budget cuts.

In 2006 sounded like not a bad idea

And in my oppinion still is a good idea despite all the issues you mentioned.

And if they perfect it a bit you can have systems like the fire and forget ATGM missiles fired from tanks and that would be quite useful.

They can even engage concealed targets out of LOS

Who knows what new technology's the Russians have developed for the Amarta

A fire and forget tank lunched ATGM, would be something but I doubt they could get all the Electronics needed in to a small warhead.

[Invader ZIM]

That's one thing we really haven't seen yet from Russia. Top attack ATGM systems.

[Furia]

hehe I am just thinking on the possibilities of such weapon. Imagine the enemy tank hides behind a reverse slope.

You fire a missile like the spike and using its camera find the tgt and destroy it.

Would surely change some of the actual rules of armor warfare hehe

[Ssnake]

I agree with you that most likely Russian sensors, cameras and thermals are not as good as Western.

I think this is a dangerous and largely unsupported assumption. Lens making is no more a secret technology. The Russians have switched over from the strategy of mass producing tanks at minimal production cost towards higher quality in lower numbers. This allows them to be more selective with optical sights. Thermal imagers, maybe they are still a bit behind, but today's uncooled consumer TIs (e.g. what architects use to identify heat leakes in a houses insulation) are already approaching or surpassing 1st generation cooled TI systems.

Maybe the quality is lower, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Furia]

This is exactly how I think as well. "Maybe quality is lower" but we cannot count on it and we should assume that they would not have any problems to locate an enemy MBT at 8 km with an adequate LOS.

It is an extremely dangerous assumption believing the enemy capabilities are worse than yours. If you plan your strategy based on that concept and err on that assumption you may have a very rude awakening.

So I fully agree with Nils on this.