Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 494

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #316
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    You're grasping at straws. You don't even know the history. And you called yourself a Foreign Service member. I was there. You were not and your grasp of history is nothing more than fantasy with zero basis in reality.

    If you were British Foreign Service, you should know all of this, especially what John Major and Douglas Hurd said. You do not ... and what I posted was open sourced, not even archive ... which leaves doubts to your claims.

    The rest of your post, nothing addressing with what I posted and certainly reflecting zero in foreign service,
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 13 Jul 16, at 05:26.
    Chimo

  2. #317
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    And please, DO NOT EVER CLAIM THAT I DID NOT ANSWER YOUR POSTS! I answered each and everyone of them with citations and references.

    It is you who walked away without answering each and everytime.

    Please tell me, why the hell should the Conservatives seek an early UK election when they have a freaking majority! It makes no political sense and it makes zero government sense ... unless you want to do a 2nd referemdum sneakingly ... which you do.

    And let me put this to you simply to answer your last point. CHINA WOULD NOT DARE TO NUKE KIEV! GET IT?

    No, you don't.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 13 Jul 16, at 06:18.
    Chimo

  3. #318
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And please, DO NOT EVER CLAIM THAT I DID NOT ANSWER YOUR POSTS! I answered each and everyone of them with citations and references.

    It is you who walked away without answering each and everytime.

    Please tell me, why the hell should the Conservatives seek an early UK election when they have a freaking majority! It makes no political sense and it makes zero government sense ... unless you want to do a 2nd referemdum sneakingly ... which you do.
    Not to mention that Labor would be crying foul about the Conservatives taking advantage of their internal chaos.

  4. #319
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    just to get the thread back on track....

    stating that a 60 tonne platform is invisible to radar is pretty cute.... there are other, sympathetic and easier ways to detect tanks if doppler is removed as an option.....

    I'm guessing that its a profound claim made by suits and not engineers/geeks

  5. #320
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    just to get the thread back on track....

    stating that a 60 tonne platform is invisible to radar is pretty cute.... there are other, sympathetic and easier ways to detect tanks if doppler is removed as an option.....

    I'm guessing that its a profound claim made by suits and not engineers/geeks
    I think they are going for blending in with ground clutter on radar rather than total obscurity. Of course, it would require a TON of batteries if they want to keep it turned on in any capacity without immediately lighting up on infrared.

    That's particularly unfortunate for the Russians considering how much of NATO is investing in a new fighter with the most comprehensive infrared suite ever flown.

  6. #321
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It is you who walked away without answering each and everytime.

    Please tell me, why the hell should the Conservatives seek an early UK election when they have a freaking majority! It makes no political sense and it makes zero government sense ... unless you want to do a 2nd referemdum sneakingly ... which you do.
    To get a larger majority, a longer term of power before another election, because the Opposition are in a mess and to get a mandate. But didn't I say this already? Perhaps you could now start with replying to "should Ukraine march 10,000 men into Mariupol in which direction should they then advance?"... a question I seem to recall asking several times but never getting a response to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And let me put this to you simply to answer your last point. CHINA WOULD NOT DARE TO NUKE KIEV! GET IT?

    No, you don't.
    Because it is not in their interests - not because the Putin regime would retaliate 'on Ukraine's behalf'.

  7. #322
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    It might be better served by starting a different thread for the argy bargy on geopolitical issues.... I don't see too much of it that relates to suppressing tank signatures from radar....

  8. #323
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    in internet read interesting discussion about the problem with radar heating on Armata. The designers claim that it is not a their mistake, but wrong understanding of the radar application and use.... they claim that efficient cooling was not made because: "radar is not intended for continued (longtime) use in maximum emission mode. In this mode it consumes much of the energy and automatically tuns it on only when tank crew/and/or other systems see a danger. Otherwise it shall not be working constantly and will be off active emitting." Hence radar is not constantly monitoring the surface around the tank for missiles/projectiles, but only when immediate attack is expected.

    In my view it means that a sudden attack would not be tracked by the Armata radar..... and because it looks like the active defense system Afganit is relying much on the radar.... I don't know if it will be working against a sudden attack (like a guy with RPG7 coming from around the corner).... it is not clear.

    But this is only my guesses.

  9. #324
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    in internet read interesting discussion about the problem with radar heating on Armata. The designers claim that it is not a their mistake, but wrong understanding of the radar application and use.... they claim that efficient cooling was not made because: "radar is not intended for continued (longtime) use in maximum emission mode. In this mode it consumes much of the energy and automatically tuns it on only when tank crew/and/or other systems see a danger. Otherwise it shall not be working constantly and will be off active emitting." Hence radar is not constantly monitoring the surface around the tank for missiles/projectiles, but only when immediate attack is expected.

    In my view it means that a sudden attack would not be tracked by the Armata radar..... and because it looks like the active defense system Afganit is relying much on the radar.... I don't know if it will be working against a sudden attack (like a guy with RPG7 coming from around the corner).... it is not clear.

    But this is only my guesses.
    active electronic signature management is absolutely useless against a wvr line of sight fire and forget dumb weapon

  10. #325
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    in internet read interesting discussion about the problem with radar heating on Armata. The designers claim that it is not a their mistake, but wrong understanding of the radar application and use.... they claim that efficient cooling was not made because: "radar is not intended for continued (longtime) use in maximum emission mode. In this mode it consumes much of the energy and automatically tuns it on only when tank crew/and/or other systems see a danger. Otherwise it shall not be working constantly and will be off active emitting." Hence radar is not constantly monitoring the surface around the tank for missiles/projectiles, but only when immediate attack is expected.

    In my view it means that a sudden attack would not be tracked by the Armata radar..... and because it looks like the active defense system Afganit is relying much on the radar.... I don't know if it will be working against a sudden attack (like a guy with RPG7 coming from around the corner).... it is not clear.

    But this is only my guesses.
    I doubt its designed to protect a single tank, but is rather part of an integrated system.

    They will probably use it 2 of 3 at a time in a platoon. If you figure a semi-intelligent IVIS/BMS, then the linked info can run 2 at a time and switch 1 off and the 3rd on so it can cool until its time to relieve number 2 to infinity. If you also alternate positions you can also disguise which tank isn't emitting. Though if running 1 forward, 2 back or 2 forward 1 back it will always be the side tanks emitting to maximize coverage. Where it gets more complex is company sized or larger units, especially combined arms. If the IVIS/BMS isn't top notch, then friendly fire headed out may confuse the radars looking for enemy fire coming in.

    If the system proves successful, it will be copied and spark an EM arms race on the ground that mimics what we saw in the air in the 70's/80's leading to the F-117/B-2. To an extent we are already seeing that but most directed at thermal signatures.

  11. #326
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Am I missing something? I've seen nothing in the arm'd reccee sqns that relies on radar.
    Chimo

  12. #327
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Am I missing something? I've seen nothing in the arm'd reccee sqns that relies on radar.
    The active defensive system on the Armata uses a radar.

  13. #328
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    There's a lot of hyperbolie in this blog post but I found the following quote interesting:

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...obsolete-17158

    Later, during a one-on-one interview at the Center the same day, I asked Pukhov to elaborate on the Tank 2.0 concept. Pukhov said that traditionally, infantry has protected tanks—particularly in built up urban areas—but given the speed of modern armored vehicles, that is no longer possible in many cases. But while during previous eras tanks were more or less protected against weapons like rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles, the latest generation of those weapons can punch through even the toughest armor.

    As an example, Pukhov cited a particular battle in Eastern Ukraine where—even when operating under ideal conditions—a tank force fighting under the banner of Kremlin-backed separatist forces was all but annihilated by rocket-propelled grenades. If even a small force of anti-tank missile-equipped infantry could decimate a tank column, the take-away for the Russians was that they needed to rethink the entire concept of the tank. “That’s why we have the concept of the Tank 2.0,” Pukhov said. “We have a prototype of this machine that’s called the fighting vehicle to support tank attack—Terminator.”
    Maybe the Ukrainians were doing fine without those Javelins after all....

  14. #329
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    The active defensive system on the Armata uses a radar.
    My point is that I never seen a reccee sqn that can detect radar.
    Chimo

  15. #330
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    There's a lot of hyperbolie in this blog post but I found the following quote interesting:

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...obsolete-17158



    Maybe the Ukrainians were doing fine without those Javelins after all....
    The Russins invented hot water? Back in the day their Terminator was called mech infantry. Somebody help.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 01:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 19:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 09:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 15:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 11:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •