Page 4 of 33 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 494

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    That radar is going to be a wonderfull target...
    Assuming they are stupid enough to use it with NATO jets around. I'd actually argue that the T-14 wasn't primarily built to fight NATO.

    The Afghanit active protection system is more of a response to Russian experiences in Grozny and Georgia than a system built with the West in mind. It is geared towards countering ATGMs fired from the ground or helicopters. It claims to be able to kill things like RPGs, TOWs, and Javelins. An APFSDS round is right around the upper speed limit to what the system claims to intercept, so is unlikely to be very reliable, and weapons like JDAMs aren't mentioned at all. I'm assuming it doesn't actually shoot up.

    The most interesting thing about the radar isn't it's missile swatting abilities but rather that it lets the T-14 double as a SPAAG on demand without the need for a separate platform. The 12.7mm machine gun can be swapped for a 30mm cannon, and the T-14 is designed to fire AA missiles. Radar directed gunfire and short ranged missiles won't slow down a group of angry Tornado pilots, but it presents a decidedly serious threat helicopters and low flying ground attack aircraft like the SU-25s Russia's neighbors have in their inventory.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 21 May 16, at 22:02.

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,833
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Assuming they are stupid enough to use it with NATO jets around. I'd actually argue that the T-14 wasn't primarily built to fight NATO.
    NATO? Pretty much everyone for the past 20 years has installed radar retectors. And I'll bet anyone knowing they will fight T-14s will grab some for their ground forces.

  3. #48
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    NATO? Pretty much everyone for the past 20 years has installed radar retectors. And I'll bet anyone knowing they will fight T-14s will grab some for their ground forces.
    I don't think they'll just flip the radars on willy nilly. They'll turn them on when faced with ATMG or helicopter threats, in which case the enemy already knows where they are. Against NATO forces that presents a beacon for a HARM to follow. I don't know that former Warsaw Pact countries have extensive inventories of anti-radiation missiles however.

  4. #49
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,537
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    It claims to be able to kill things like RPGs, TOWs, and Javelins. An APFSDS round is right around the upper speed limit to what the system claims to intercept, so is unlikely to be very reliable
    Source? A slow APDS like the US M829A3 is traveling 1550m/s and the slower HEAT round is still around 900m/s. Faster lighter sabots an exceed 1700 m/s.

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Source? A slow APDS like the US M829A3 is traveling 1550m/s and the slower HEAT round is still around 900m/s. Faster lighter sabots an exceed 1700 m/s.
    http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/conte...11239-uvb5.htm

    The operative paragraph is as follows:

    Новая броня - не единственное средство защиты экипажа Арматы. По некоторым данным, этот танк станет первым, на который установят новые средства активной защиты от реактивных гранат и подкалиберных снарядов. Это новейшая разработка Коломенского бюро машиностроения – Афганит. Из открытых источников о ней известно, что радиолокационная система работает в миллиметровом диапазоне, впервые использует защитные боеприпасы с боевой частью типа ударное ядро, а не осколочные, как раньше. Ближний рубеж перехвата ракет, снарядов или реактивных гранат составляет 15-20 метров, а максимальная скорость перехвата бронебойных подкалиберных снарядов – 1700 м/с. В перспективе на Армату планируется установить еще более совершенную систему защиты Заслон. Она уже будет способна перехватывать цели, летящие со скоростью от 2500 до 3000 м/с.
    Which translates to:

    New armor - not only the protection of the crew "Almaty was" tool. According to some, this will be the first tank, which will establish new means of active protection against rocket-propelled grenades and piercing projectiles. It is the latest development of the Kolomna Engineering Design Bureau - "Afghans." From public sources of it it is known that the radar system operates in the millimeter range, for the first time uses the protective ammunition warhead type explosively formed penetrator, not a fragment as before. Middle line of interception of missiles, shells or rocket-propelled grenades is 15-20 meters, and the maximum speed to intercept armor-piercing shells - 1700 m / s. In the future, "Armata" is planned to establish more perfect protection "Barrier" system. She had to be able to intercept targets flying at a speed of 2500 to 3000 m / s.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, for the moment, the T-14's active protection system can supposedly intercept targets up to 1700 m/s which puts it in range of APFSDS rounds, although they are right on the upper end of it's maximum intercept velocity. How reliable such claims turn out to be is anyone's guess, but based on what they are stating, I'd guess it can reliably intercept ATMGs and slower tank rounds and it can sometimes hit a kinetic energy penetrator.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 23 May 16, at 03:33.

  6. #51
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Wondering what you guys think about the points in this article:

    http://www.defenseone.com/technology...ref=d-dontmiss

    Cross-Domain Fires

    “We’re out-ranged by a lot of these systems and they employ improved conventional munitions, which we are going away from. There will be a 40- to 60-percent reduction in lethality in the systems that we have,” he said. “Remember that we already have fewer artillery systems. Now those fewer artillery systems will be less effective relative to the enemy. So we need to do something on that now.”

    To remedy that, McMaster is looking into a new area called “cross domain fires,” which would outfit ground units to hit a much wider array of targets. “When an Army fires unit arrives somewhere, it should be able to do surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and shore-to-ship capabilities. We are developing that now and there are some really promising capabilities,” he said...
    Since the 1980s, he said last October, at an Association for the United States Army event, the U.S. has given up its qualitative edge, mostly by getting rid of cluster munitions.

    Munitions have advanced incredibly since then. One of the most terrifying weapons that the Russians are using on the battlefield are thermobaric warheads, weapons that are composed almost entirely of fuel and burn longer and with more intensity than other types of munitions.

    “In a 3-minute period…a Russian fire strike wiped out two mechanized battalions [with] a combination of top-attack munitions and thermobaric warheads,” said Karber. “If you have not experienced or seen the effects of thermobaric warheads, start taking a hard look. They might soon be coming to a theater near you.”

    Karber also noted that Russian forces made heavy and integrated use of electronic warfare. It’s used to identify fire sources and command posts and to shut down voice and data communications. In the northern section, he said, “every single tactical radio [the Ukrainian forces] had was taken out by heavy Russian sector-wide EW.” Other EW efforts had taken down Ukrainian quadcopters. Another system was being used to mess with the electrical fuses on Ukrainian artillery shells, ”so when they hit, they’re duds,” he said.

    Karber also said the pro-Russian troops in Donbas were using an overlapping mobile radar as well as a new man-portable air defense that’s “integrated into their network and can’t be spoofed by [infrared] decoys” or flares.
    If the war in Eastern Ukraine were a real-world test, the Russian T-90 tank passed with flying colors. The tank had seen action in Dagestan and Syria, but has been particularly decisive in Ukraine. The Ukrainians, Karber said, “have not been able to record one single kill on a T-90. They have the new French optics on them. The Russians actually designed them to take advantage of low light, foggy, winter conditions.”
    The T-90’s active protective system is the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite. “I’ve interviewed Ukrainian tank gunners,” said Karber. “They’ll say ‘I had my [anti-tank weapon] right on it, it got right up to it and then they had this miraculous shield. An invisible shield. Suddenly, my anti-tank missile just went up to the sky."
    Pro-Russian forces use as many as 16 types of UAVs for targeting.

    Russian forces are known to have “a 90-kilometer [Multiple Launch Rocket System] round, that goes out, parachute comes up, a UAV pops out, wings unfold, and they fly it around, it can strike a mobile target” said Karber, who said he wasn’t sure it had yet been used in Ukraine.
    And a cautionary note about the source of some of this information:

    Karber’s track record for accuracy is less than perfect, as writer Jeffrey Lewis has pointed out in Foreign Policy. At various points, he has inflated estimates of China’s nuclear arsenal from some 300 weapons (based on declassified estimates) to 3,000 squirreled away in mysterious tunnels, a claim that many were able to quickly debunk. In 2014, he helped pass photos to Sen. James Inhofe of the Senate Armed Services Committee that purported to be recent images of Russian forces inside Ukraine. It turned out they were AP photographs from 2008.

  7. #52
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    A lot of hyperbole. Thermobarics sucks in rain and strong wind. Kill two battalions in 3 minutes? That's new? Everyone forgotten the katusha rockets?

    Russian EW shut down Ukrainian sigs? Wow, that's impressive. The Russians blew up a cell phone tower.

    So it was Russian electronic jamming and not lack of maintenance that explains Ukrainian duds.
    Chimo

  8. #53

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826
    I'm not as disdainful as the Colonel. McMaster is no fool. His battle experiences coupled with keen intellect means his sum insight confirms much that Karber suggests...and is, accordingly, concerned. Those comments by McMaster must be weighed slightly against a (perhaps) parochial perspective arising from his current development assignment. That's a concern only should you question his ethical grounding.

    I don't. This is not contrived hysterical alarmism aimed to boost budget requests. There is validity to the specifics claimed and, weighed against our current capabilities, must be concerning. We have assumed tactical overmatch in force-on-force scenarios yet our platforms are, increasingly, become legacy items. Our M-1 variants, at 36 years active deployment, have long-bypassed the M60 series of tanks in active service.

    Our artillery units have, as claimed, lost considerable lethality for reasons owing variously to changes in munitions, tube numbers, and various inter-related targeting concerns including EW degradation of acquisition and comms, changes in target profiles and contested airspace.

    I'm uncertain, however, that the greatest concern lies with formulating operational concepts which address hybrid warfare exercised at its full extent. This reaches to Albany Rifles thread elsewhere. We've examples of hybrid warfare exercised within a low-mid intensity combat environ. The nature of that environment will change immediately should Russia attack a NATO member. I'm certain our strategists are attempting to extrapolate what that might look like given their present examples married to a far larger conflict with consequences considerably more grave than presently contemplated WRT Ukraine. Still, that's guesswork. Under such constraints, we have to presume the worst. What's that?

    1975-1984 would be the closest example I can imagine where our qualitative edge was nil, our airspace expected to be highly contested and expecting to face a severely degraded electronic battlefield amidst the constant threat of massed indirect fires and chem strikes.

    Sh!t the Red Army was damned good at then is, again, being pursued by the Russians as a core competency. If so, I'd be as concerned as McMasters evidently seems to be.
    "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

  9. #54
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    That there is disagreement within the Pentagon itself is an understatement

    The U.S. Army’s War Over Russia - POLITICO Magazine
    Chimo

  10. #55
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,360
    This is the most telling line in the entire article...

    While the reporting about the Army study made headlines in the major media, a large number in the military’s influential retired community, including former senior Army officers, rolled their eyes.

    Are these some of the same generals who couldn't come up with a viable plan for the last 15 years?

    Regarding the Air Force....really? The Air Force is trying kill off the aircraft (A-10) which is the best to support Army forces. The F-35 is supposed to fit the bill...but when is that going to be online in sufficient numbers?

    And the comment regarding Douglas Macgregor....who loves him some Douglas Macgregor...about McMaster only wanting funding for a bigger Army? Well of course he does! That is because the Army is being asked to carry the load in our once and future wars!!! Just how much do they think we can mobilize the National Guard and Army Reserve? Over use is starting to kill those units...I see it on a daily basis.

    What I want McMaster to do as head of ARCIC is to get the Maneuver Center to streamline requirements for a next generation of combat vehicles. Don't try to overstretch technology.

    Wed don't need another FCS.
    We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a days heat, fell dusty.
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    While the reporting about the Army study made headlines in the major media, a large number in the military’s influential retired community, including former senior Army officers, rolled their eyes.

    Are these some of the same generals who couldn't come up with a viable plan for the last 15 years?
    As well as saying whatever it took to get the budget...

  12. #57

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826
    Buck,

    "...Are these some of the same generals who couldn't come up with a viable plan for the last 15 years..?"

    Hard to say as the article was rife with un-named pentagon sources and, of course, Deptula. Once more, though, it wouldn't be Air Force maintenance sergeants spilling blood in the Estonian mud as they try figuring out how to get that F-35 thingy to provide our Doggies with CAS.

    "...Just how much do they think we can mobilize the National Guard and Army Reserve? Over use is starting to kill those units...I see it on a daily basis..."

    Are you kidding? Our Guard/Reserve are there to be royally fcuked with. Too cool. You mean they'll fight and die for their country with worn-out equipment, no retirement worth a shit and their families on the (very) low end of DoD's priorities while deployed thousands of miles away in a shooting war?

    THAT is our army today. They might not be at the absolute pointy end of the spear but they're damned near the rest of the shaft...as long as we're speaking of shafts.
    "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

  13. #58
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,360
    Steve,

    Yup. And I have to tell you, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve ARE NOT the weekend warriors we once knew. They are a hard charging, professional force which is battle hardened and experienced. But they are tired. I will say they are getting better equipment...having a member on the Joint Chiefs helps with that.

    At my Legion post last month the TAG for the VA NG came and spoke. He said starting next quarter several unbrigaded Guard battalions will be ASSIGNED (he stressed the word) to active duty brigades. For instance 1st Battalion (Airborne), 143rd Infantry along with a supporting artillery battery and forward support company, will be assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade and will mobilize for up to 100 days annually as opposed to the normal 39. Conversely, several Active brigades will be assigned to NG divisions.

    But bottomline is it won't be the Round Out concept you and I "loved" from the 1980s.

    Okay, we jacked the thread long enough. We can open this up in another if we wish.
    We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a days heat, fell dusty.
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  14. #59
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    That the USArmy needs funds and more men is not in dispute with me. That the Russian are capable of kicking our ass - that's where I find this ludicrous. They may have a few individual components here and there that are superior to ours but when it comes to the total package? Not even close. Hell, a rag-tag but determined Ukrainian Army strained the Russians to no end.

    We've spent the last 20 years training our SF and reccee how to laser targets and the result show. In the Kosovo War, we had 5% targets hit vs weapons release because we didn't have spotters. Against ISIL, we're achieving 80-90 percent and not just because the AF got better.

    During our Cold War days, blue-on-blue was a real and expected danger because the bellycrawlers don't talk to the birds. Today? The bellycrawlers own the birds. We rely on artillery back then because we didn't have command of the air assets. Today, the Bde CO owns everything in his AOR. He commands all the birds in the air just as he commands all the tubes on the ground. Granted we're asking more from our people but our people are now extremely capable of more.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 07 Jun 16, at 16:50.
    Chimo

  15. #60
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    That the USArmy needs funds and more men is not in dispute with me. That the Russian are capable of kicking our ass - that's where I find this ludicrous. They may have a few individual components here and there that are superior to ours but when it comes to the total package? Not even close. Hell, a rag-tag but determined Ukrainian Army strained the Russians to no end.

    We've spent the last 20 years training our SF and reccee how to laser targets and the result show. In the Kosovo War, we had 5% targets hit vs weapons release because we didn't have spotters. Against ISIL, we're achieving 80-90 percent and not just because the AF got better.

    During our Cold War days, blue-on-blue was a real and expected danger because the bellycrawlers don't talk to the birds. Today? The bellycrawlers own the birds. We rely on artillery back then because we didn't have command of the air assets. Today, the Bde CO owns everything in his AOR. He commands all the birds in the air just as he commands all the tubes on the ground. Granted we're asking more from our people but our people are now extremely capable of more.
    While we have more guided and smart artillery munitions than the Russians, they have a lot more and more capable tubes and rockets and enough smart munitions to make our edge in stockpiles less than decisive. Perhaps even more importantly, they still believe in big artillery. We've been trying to refine accuracy down to the finest possible CEP lest we kill a civvie. The Russians just don't care. They'll happily flatten a square kilometer to kill an enemy platoon and damn the collateral damage.

    In Europe the current balance of forces favors the Russians east of the Oder River. The only army in Eastern Europe worth a damn is Poland, which is great for the Poles, not so good for Romania, Hungry and the Baltics. Putin undoutably wants Moldavia and the Baltics, and the only thing that will keep him from them long term is a USARE presence big enough to force us into a for real war, and a USAR in CONUS big enough to make it a war Russia can't feel confident in winning.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 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
  •