Page 23 of 31 FirstFirst ... 141516171819202122232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 458

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #331
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    My point is that I never seen a reccee sqn that can detect radar.
    Once radars become common you will.

  2. #332
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Once radars become common you will.
    the shape and nature of the "box" has changed - its not about whether the reccee sqdn can see the radar - its whether its hooked up to other assets that may be "off" that fighting map which are feeding it supporting info while moving

    its no longer singularly critical that "Unit A" is all eared up in her own right, its about whether she's hooked up with every other asset that can see what she can't and tell her without informing anyone of her presence.

    so as long as that reccee sqdn is eared up, then she can get fed situationally any relevant material to enhance the collection job - and without exposing herself unnecessarily.

    we're seeing that already with 5th gen manned air, 5th/6th gen unmanned air, and UDT hives....
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 30 Jul 16, at 09:11. Reason: clarity

  3. #333
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    the shape and nature of the "box" has changed - its not about whether the reccee sqdn can see the radar - its whether its hooked up to other assets that may be "off" that fighting map which are feeding it supporting info while moving
    It's an extreme short range radar designed to be used against incoming rounds. Would it even be detected by assets outside the battle area?
    Chimo

  4. #334
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It's an extreme short range radar designed to be used against incoming rounds. Would it even be detected by assets outside the battle area?
    You can see a man with a lantern from a lot further out than a man with a lantern can see you.

    If a 5th genn asset is in the battle space it's going to be looking with fused sensors. That means radar cueing ir cueing passive em in a closed loop and networked with other assets.

    Implications are unpleasant for anything that emits above background.

  5. #335
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It's an extreme short range radar designed to be used against incoming rounds. Would it even be detected by assets outside the battle area?
    IMO yes. sensors look not only for emissions but anomalies within that environment - if its that short range then it seems to be a hail mary solution, and as such when it does trigger an alert, I would imagine that the defensive response will be shrill but violent - that also in itself is another sensor tell. Unless the incoming is the last anti tank weapon on the battlefield, all thats been achieved is that the 1st incoming might be sacrificial, but everyone eared up now knows where to send the follow ups -and they don't have to trust info identifying the tank - but the path and end point of the prev round to narrow the box further.

    tanks still don't do well on their own from overhead/top down weapons. IIRC one of the lessons learnt very quickly in recent times was the israelis when their own tanks moved out of air cover and support. the tempo of the battle had to be shifted to get them back to good practice.

    tanks on their own are going to be dismembered, tanks moving as part of an overall force where topcover and GBAD are tagging along have a greater chance of survival, but the sheer mass of that formation along with the emissions being picked up by their other ground force escorts and overhead escorts is going to telegraph their presence

    the prev is overly simplified for obvious reasons, but in the current battle management environment where we no longer just fight with the support of individual sensors, but now can fight with various and multiple platforms that can fuse lots of material in their own right and act in their own independent right to defend their own force (eg standoff and handoff capability) then you have to consider that life just got harder for the tank - no matter how capable they may be at the individual level and the competency of that individual crew.

    the difference now is that there is a capability to over saturate the target area of interest with multiple platform types with multiple sensor types per platform, red team has to be emission quiet, heat managed, acoustically managed, topcover defended by their own air or by supporting mobile anti-air etc... and the bigger the defensive screeen the greater the opportunity for anyone of those supporting assets to trigger a sensor and a response - even if the response is just ISR and not kinetic
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 31 Jul 16, at 01:01.

  6. #336
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Actually, this is a non-issue. By the time they turn on that radar, we're already shooting at them.
    Chimo

  7. #337
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,544
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...18d_story.html

    Russia’s superior new weapons

    By Robert H. Scales August 5 at 7:11 PM
    Robert H. Scales is a retired Army major general, a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College and the author of the forthcoming book “Scales on War.”


    In November, while visiting the headquarters of the U.S. Army in Europe, I received a briefing on the performance of the Russian army in Ukraine. In a perfunctory tone, the young intelligence briefer recited the details of the July 2014 Battle of Zelenopillya, in which a single Russian artillery “fire strike” almost destroyed two Ukrainian mechanized battalions in a few minutes.

    I couldn’t help imagining a U.S. armored battalion subjected to a similar fire strike. I realized then that Ukraine had become Russia’s means for showcasing what might happen if we ever fought a firepower-intensive battle against it. “You know, guys,” I mused in the moment, “this is the first time since the beginning of the Cold War that an American war-fighting function has been bested by a foreign military.”

    This revelation was all the more disturbing because artillery firepower has been a centerpiece of U.S. land warfare for almost a century. At Normandy, the Germans had nothing good to say about the quality of U.S. armor and infantry. But they feared U.S. artillery. The Germans could not mass fire across unit boundaries. But an American invention, the coordinated-fire “time on target,” could bring hundreds of guns to bear on a single target, delivering thousands of rounds simultaneously. The effect on the Germans was devastating.

    During the Gulf War, the Iraqis most feared what they called “steel rain.” The “rain” consisted of hundreds of thousands of flashlight-size bomblets stuffed into artillery shells and rocket warheads. U.S. counter-fire radar, mated to multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS), smothered Saddam Hussein’s much-vaunted artillery in a massive series of day-long barrages. The Iraqi artillery never again posed a threat to our troops.

    The Ukrainian experience serves as a deadly analogue for what might happen to U.S. artillery should we fight the Russians or a Russian surrogate. New Russian firepower systems now outrange ours by a third or more. They have improved on our steel-rain technology by developing a new generation of bomblet munitions that are filled with thermobaric explosives. These munitions generate an intense blast wave of exploding gases that are far more lethal than conventional explosives. A single volley of Russian thermobaric steel rain delivered by a single heavy-rocket-launcher battalion will annihilate anything within an area of about 350 acres.

    Tragically, all of America’s steel-rain munitions — millions of shells and warheads — are gone, intentionally destroyed by the past two administrations in a sacrifice to the gods of political correctness. They agreed to give up all submunition weapons after other nations (which had no steel rain) signed a treaty banning such weapons because they produce too many duds that remain on the battlefield and pose risks to civilians. Russia, China and Israel believed they had real wars to fight and ignored the treaty. As a result, a Russian heavy-rocket-launcher battalion firing steel rain produces a lethal area at least five times greater than a U.S. MLRS battalion firing conventional high-explosive warheads.

    The performance of Russian artillery in Ukraine strongly demonstrates that, over the past two decades, the Russians have gotten a technological jump on us. The United States’ strategic drones, the ones that plink terrorists from bases in Nevada, are more advanced than Russia’s. But Russian tactical drones, which spot for artillery, are far superior (and far more numerous) than ours. In 2014, when the Battle of Debaltseve began, the Ukrainians reported that as many as eight Russian tactical drones orbited over their heads at any one time.

    Additionally, the electronic warfare technology demonstrated by the Russians in Ukraine is the best in the world, far better than ours. During the 240-day siege of the Donetsk airport, the Russians were able to jam GPS, radios and radar signals. Their electronic intercept capabilities were so good that the Ukrainians’ communications were crippled. Ukrainian commanders complained that a punishing barrage would follow any radio transmission within seconds.

    Does this mean that the Russian army is superior to ours? No, not at all. If we fought the Russians today, we would win. Ours is a highly trained force of half a million soldiers. Two-thirds of Vladi*mir Putin’s 800,000 soldiers are one-year conscripts whose fighting skills are questionable. The Russian air force is also no match for ours. But the Ukrainian experience tells us that the cost in blood of any such contest would be high.

    A tragic decline of a war-fighting arm that once was our Army’s most lethal should serve as a cautionary tale. This diminution of war-fighting capability in our European army comes at an inauspicious time: when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump publicly questions the value of defending Europe and the Obama administration is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on big, high-tech systems optimized to fight at sea in Asia. Yet in today’s wars, more prosaic weapons such as small arms, mines and artillery are killing our soldiers. Add in the fact that we have forfeited what formerly was an overwhelming U.S. battlefield capability, and we can only imagine what deadly consequences may result from our good intentions.

  8. #338
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    it was a self fulfilling prophesy in a lot of ways

    if you use thermobarics to destroy your own heavy weapons because its the most efficient way to ensure destruction - then sooner or later your enemies will work on a way to adopt and expand upon that capability themselves

    and in real terms you'd have to consider that syria is the new spanish civil war - with a smattering of geurnicas in the mix. those thermobarics have been getting a work out in syria - and not just arty delivery

    unforunately the west never learns that peace dividends are a canard...

  9. #339
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,415
    I'm not sure this proves anything about the might of Russian EW. Not saying they are not a threat but I don't think you can call them "Best in the World" based on operations in Ukraine

    Additionally, the electronic warfare technology demonstrated by the Russians in Ukraine is the best in the world, far better than ours. During the 240-day siege of the Donetsk airport, the Russians were able to jam GPS, radios and radar signals. Their electronic intercept capabilities were so good that the Ukrainians communications were crippled. Ukrainian commanders complained that a punishing barrage would follow any radio transmission within seconds.
    Ukraine barely had an Army. Not a well trained one. Uses Russian equipment and had no way of countering Russian efforts.

    Its like the bad old days at CAX where all the EW assets were on the "Orange" side so that we would learn how to operate without emitting from our position and "Shoot, Move, Communicate"

    Does anyone remember what happened to the GPS jammers in Iraq on the first day of the war?

    How would the Russians do in a EW environment where the other side also knew how to play the game?
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  10. #340
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    if you use thermobarics to destroy your own heavy weapons because its the most efficient way to ensure destruction - then sooner or later your enemies will work on a way to adopt and expand upon that capability themselves
    Thermobarics are a good weather weapon. It sucks in wind and rain.
    Chimo

  11. #341
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Thermobarics are a good weather weapon. It sucks in wind and rain.
    I thought the newer generation stuff is more weather-consistent.

  12. #342
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Smaller blast radius. The ignition point is much sooner than to wait for optimum dispersal which would be at the mercy of wind and rain. There is no free ride.
    Chimo

  13. #343
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Smaller blast radius. The ignition point is much sooner than to wait for optimum dispersal which would be at the mercy of wind and rain. There is no free ride.
    True, but maybe still an improvement over coventional blast fragmentation?

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/agm-114n.htm

    In the 1990s, the Energetics Materials and Ordnance Components Branch worked with China Lake and others to develop nonliquid FAEs containing aluminum particles. The goal was a solid FAE with a greater impulse (pressure over time) than conventional explosives. They were successful in developing a class of explosives that demonstrated greater impulse than non-augmented explosives. The work received a classified US Patent and was the basis for the MAC warhead.

    The new warhead contains a fluorinated aluminum powder layered between the warhead casing and the PBXN-112 explosive fill. When the PBXN-112 detonates, the aluminum mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against enemy personnel and structures.
    It sounds to me like the newer thermobaric mixtures actually ignites immediately and the particles just move out on an extended burn over a larger area than a conventional explosive.

    In a conventional explosive the detonation wave moves through the explosive mixture at supersonic speed in the solid material (IE much faster than speed of sound in air) and the energy release ends pretty much in the central small volume of the original warhead. There is a larger fireball around the weapon but it's dissipating energy not releasing it.

    In a fuel air explosive you disperse and aerosol and then ignite it with a second explosion. The aerosol actually doesn't detonate. It's more of what one would call a deflagration where the flame front moves rapidly through the area of high aerosol concentration but at below the speed of sound in air. You have bad effects in rain because it interferes with aerosol ignition and wind because it interferes with dispersal.

    In these newer thermobarics, you're using similar types of mixtures to those found in solid fuel rockets. You have an explosive mixed with a metal powder. The explosive detonates and provides the initial kick, igniting the metal particles which move out at supersonic speed. However, the metal particles continue burning for a relatively long time after the explosive has detonated. As a result, you have a fireball that is continuing to release energy over an extended burn, which creates the sustained pressure and blast effects. It's not as good as the aerosol over large areas under ideal conditions, but still more effective than the HE.

  14. #344
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    True, but maybe still an improvement over coventional blast fragmentation?
    This reads as systems against soft/thin skinned targets. I have doubts about this against heavy armour and bunkers.

    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    In a conventional explosive the detonation wave moves through the explosive mixture at supersonic speed in the solid material (IE much faster than speed of sound in air) and the energy release ends pretty much in the central small volume of the original warhead. There is a larger fireball around the weapon but it's dissipating energy not releasing it.
    Actually, this is false. We want as small fireball as possible. What we want is an overpressure mixed with shrapnel from the shell casing flying at supersonic speeds to cut into anything and everything in its path.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 08 Aug 16, at 01:12.
    Chimo

  15. #345
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,415
    Gen Scales gets this somewhat wrong.

    Tragically, all of America’s steel-rain munitions — millions of shells and warheads — are gone, intentionally destroyed by the past two administrations in a sacrifice to the gods of political correctness. They agreed to give up all submunition weapons after other nations (which had no steel rain) signed a treaty banning such weapons because they produce too many duds that remain on the battlefield and pose risks to civilians. Russia, China and Israel believed they had real wars to fight and ignored the treaty. As a result, a Russian heavy-rocket-launcher battalion firing steel rain produces a lethal area at least five times greater than a U.S. MLRS battalion firing conventional high-explosive warheads.
    MLRS ICM/DPICM rounds were replaced with the AW round. Instead of having 644 submunitions (with an average 60% dud rate) the AW round contain 160,000 preformed tungsten fragments. Think big ass beehive round

    I think that still qualifies as "Steel Rain"

    The real reason we dumped ICM was not because of civilian casualties after the battle. Its because any area that you use ICM rounds in gets classified as a minefield/ No go area for your maneuver troops until Engineers have a chance to clear the area.

    (Edit) ICM rounds/submunitions don't work well in forest, on steep slopes or soft ground (Desert sand or mud). The AW round solves those problems. Its a airburst weapon

    And nothing says loving like HE/VT
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 08 Aug 16, at 01:44.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

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,, 00:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 18:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 08:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 14:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 10:56

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
  •