Page 3 of 30 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 443

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,857
    Does this invisible tank have a radar of it's own? Presumably so in which case it is NOT invisible.

  2. #32

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,764
    As always, METT-T determines application. Gross generalizations are just that-gross and generalized. Our own force commanders were begging for heavy armor in Mogadishu back 1994…and had to borrow from the Pakistanis IIRC. Plenty of examples in Iraq where mixed combat teams were integral to mission success-Fallujah, 2004 comes to mind.

    Commanders need to display some elasticity with some of these "axioms" commonly tossed about.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  3. #33
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Does this invisible tank have a radar of it's own? Presumably so in which case it is NOT invisible.
    indeed it has one. Moreover, its defense system requires this radar to be actively emitting, as its most serious automatic defense system - Afghanit, cannot work with radar in passive regime. I am relying here on forum discussions in Russian web.

    clearly radar makes this tank more visible than any other tank in the world.

    Nonetheless, clearly this is the most advanced tank, at present no other tank in the world can match it in capabilities.

    The only thing which is limiting it - the cost. Some people in Russian web doubt the official statements about its cost, the reason for that is its Active Defense System with radars, if it is done properly it should be quite expensive solution for a ground vehicle.

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    indeed it has one. Moreover, its defense system requires this radar to be actively emitting, as its most serious automatic defense system - Afghanit, cannot work with radar in passive regime. I am relying here on forum discussions in Russian web.

    clearly radar makes this tank more visible than any other tank in the world.

    Nonetheless, clearly this is the most advanced tank, at present no other tank in the world can match it in capabilities.

    The only thing which is limiting it - the cost. Some people in Russian web doubt the official statements about its cost, the reason for that is its Active Defense System with radars, if it is done properly it should be quite expensive solution for a ground vehicle.
    Advanced in what sense? Its turret armor isn't too impressive, for starters.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    Advanced in what sense? Its turret armor isn't too impressive, for starters.
    It has some interesting features.

    The turret armor may not be too impressive, but because the turret is remotely controlled it may not have to be. The crew sit up front in an armored capsule. The 12.7 mm machine gun is also remotely controlled and can be swapped for a 30mm Anti-Aircraft cannon if desired.

    It weighs only 48 tons allowing for easier transportation than many Western designs, and has both reactive armor (including top mounted ERA), a decoy/disruption system for guided munitions, and an active protection hard kill system.

    And of course, they put some thought into masking the tank's radar and thermal signatures from aircraft. Now it is doubtful that it is very hard to find when charging across the steppes at 50kph, with it's active protection system emitting radar. But if it can blend in with ground cover while idling with the APS off, or even look like something that isn't a tank, that could still be quite a boon.

    All in all it seems to have the most comprehensive protection suite put on a production tank so far. How well the systems perform independently and synergistically remains to be seen, but the potential is certainly there.

  6. #36
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    indeed it has one. Moreover, its defense system requires this radar to be actively emitting, as its most serious automatic defense system - Afghanit, cannot work with radar in passive regime. I am relying here on forum discussions in Russian web.

    clearly radar makes this tank more visible than any other tank in the world.
    Not really, it depends on whose listening. An F-22/35 or Kolchuga can likely hear it, but who else?

    Nonetheless, clearly this is the most advanced tank, at present no other tank in the world can match it in capabilities.
    it might be the most advanced depending on the quality of its FCS and optics. New features are nice but only is they give the tank something useful. Russian optics have been lacking for decades. As for capabilities, this is open ended. We know for example that the Abrams has the worlds hardest hitting gun (unless the Armata is better), best FLIR system, awesome FCS and the reliability and crew comfort to deliver a Abrams with crew and tank in fighting trim 416 miles through enemy opposition and serious sand storms. Something no 3 person crewed tank can do, inherent to the weaknesses of a 3 man crew. Even the Armata can't match the Abrams frontal armor, though many tanks have better side protection. Capability is always a trade off, a tank can be good in somethings and OK in others, or great in somethings and terrible at others. The closest thing to a perfect tank is likely the Leo2A6M+, but the Abrams M1A2SEPv2TUSK beats it in some areas. The Armata will likely beat the Abrams in some areas and lose it in others.

    The only thing which is limiting it - the cost. Some people in Russian web doubt the official statements about its cost, the reason for that is its Active Defense System with radars, if it is done properly it should be quite expensive solution for a ground vehicle.
    The real limiting factor is cost and reliability. I wont be impressed until it proves it can timex (take a licking and keep on ticking).

  7. #37
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Not really, it depends on whose listening. An F-22/35 or Kolchuga can likely hear it, but who else?



    it might be the most advanced depending on the quality of its FCS and optics. New features are nice but only is they give the tank something useful. Russian optics have been lacking for decades. As for capabilities, this is open ended. We know for example that the Abrams has the worlds hardest hitting gun (unless the Armata is better), best FLIR system, awesome FCS and the reliability and crew comfort to deliver a Abrams with crew and tank in fighting trim 416 miles through enemy opposition and serious sand storms. Something no 3 person crewed tank can do, inherent to the weaknesses of a 3 man crew. Even the Armata can't match the Abrams frontal armor, though many tanks have better side protection. Capability is always a trade off, a tank can be good in somethings and OK in others, or great in somethings and terrible at others. The closest thing to a perfect tank is likely the Leo2A6M+, but the Abrams M1A2SEPv2TUSK beats it in some areas. The Armata will likely beat the Abrams in some areas and lose it in others.



    The real limiting factor is cost and reliability. I wont be impressed until it proves it can timex (take a licking and keep on ticking).
    thank you for interesting comment. I will be following news releases and forum discussions on T-14 and will post any new information if it is out.

    So far many of the questions which you pointed are not yet clear. It is not even clear what type of a autoloader the T-14 has.... some people state that it has a one autoloader + manual loading.... some state that this is a nonsense and it has two autoloaders - one in hull and smaller in turret.... what is for surely stated by Uralvagozavod that it has some autoloader and can shoot projectiles with length of up to 1.2 meters. However it is not clear how it is technically resolved.

  8. #38
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,840
    More information is becoming available. The IR visibility of T-14 is really lower than from a small scouter. The radar emission is not working most of the time - too energy consuming! Another interesting feature is being tested - radar+computer can disclose a shooting cannon/tank by trajectory of the shell and target tank's weapons on the source of the projectile.... automatic mode.

    the speculation in forums tend to conclude that it has two loaders - high speed loader in the hull, and low speed loader for longer antitank projectiles in the back of its turret. the weight of the tank is variable - 48 tons on light armored transported version to 55 tons if all the armor is installed. Armor installation can be done in just 1 hour at destination place. Damaged armor can be easily replaced after engagement.

    here are some pics. Name:  Armata1.jpg
Views: 551
Size:  504.7 KBName:  Tower-T14.jpg
Views: 553
Size:  13.8 KBName:  armata-tank-2.jpg
Views: 555
Size:  51.8 KB

    and wiki summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

  9. #39
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,780
    Excellent information Garry, thank you! :-)
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,665
    the speculation in forums tend to conclude that it has two loaders - high speed loader in the hull, and low speed loader...

    Brits had this 40 years ago with Dave and Erik.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  11. #41
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,165
    What TopHatter said.

    Good stuff!
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,857
    Possible fly in this ointment is that the manufacturer (Uralvagonzavod) is filing for bankruptcy.

  13. #43
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,840
    today read in one of the Russian forums - some guy who claimed to be knowledgeable stated that manufacturer faced problem with radar. The active array radar requires regular cooling and gives significant heat emission. In ships it can be a large liquid cooling, in a flying aircraft it is also resolvable.... in a tank it is a problem.

    Problem is resolvable but for now existing application is not reliable.

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,896
    Ah, many thanks for the graphic.

    Going to the radar, I suppose that whatever they use to cool the Tunguska and Pantsir radars is out of the question, for what I presume are cooling apparatus size constraints?

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,753
    That radar is going to be a wonderfull target...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 17 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 17 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
  •