Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

As you showed, you do not understand.

There is no such thing as coded signal.

On so called coded guidance, it is just change of sensivity of electromagnetic spectre and in tracer in hope to not coincide with countermeasure radiation.

Irradiation of systems as Shtora, or Varta is multispectral, it means there is no possibility to code guidance and be inmune.

Most which these systems hope to achieve, is a probability, but not guarantee, to not fall to countermeasure irradiation (and that is against old dazzlers). With modernised Shtora, Varta there is little chance if any.

You seems to treat western designers as ineducated idiots, who do not know how to find a countermessure to countermessure, do You?

Countermeasures exploit these guidance system weakeness, of active IR or mm wavelenght missile seeker which due to dimensions it has already limited range and contrast, aquisition ability. I will explain...

In fact most modern APS, Zaslon, Arena, take out such missiles with ease, but it is another approach.

There is also approach with new generation armour...

Russian active protection systems are obsolete piece of junk, and this is a fact. The only more capable active protection system is Zaslon, as it's module can be installed on turret roof.

As for new generation of armor... such thing do not exist in Russia, in Ukraine, yes, in Russia, no, and it is proved by Russian language sources.

Just accept the fact that after the fall of soviet Union and economic collapse, You do not have the same capabilities as in soviet times, neither You have the same capabilities as west.

This is talk without proper understanding.

No, this is truth, and I do not care about You silly nationalism.

 

[Akim]

Because both are good only against missiles with older guidance systems, and only if enemy missile will be detected. Shtora and Varta base their detection systems on laser mark detectors, however lasers are considered as obsolete by NATO as well.

Currently the only promising guidance systems seen by NATO are passive TV/TI and Radar guidance systems, as these used for FGM-148 Javelin, Spike or JAGM and newer version of AGM-114 Hellfire.

For example FGM-148 guidance system is so precise, that You can actually lock on missile on such "cold" targets like building windows, or even humans, not only vehicles with running engines.

We know only open information. you, for example know speed of intercept a complex Troppy?.
And regarding "Varta", once flashed by information , that to her develop ultraviolet track system, just against ATGM with the "passive aiming". So early to write off the similar systems from accounts.

 

[Damian]

We know only open information. you, for example know speed of intercept a complex Troppy?.

Such things are classiefied, but Trophy can intercept HEAT rounds fired from tank guns, these have like M830/DM12 have a velocity of 1,140 m/s, so Trophy can deal with fast moving threats.

And regarding "Varta", once flashed by information , that to her develop ultraviolet track system, just against ATGM with the "passive aiming". So early to write off the similar systems from accounts.

You can't countermessure such threats with soft kill active protection systems, simply because You can't detect when they are aiming at You, neither Varta or Shtora have such angle to send signal in to missile optical device when it is attacking vehicle with top attack mode on.

 

[Damian]

http://www.gd-ots.com/2011 Brochures/Shot Screen.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Thursday13977harrison.pdf

Two interesting PDF's.

 

[Akim]

You can't countermessure such threats with soft kill active protection systems, simply because You can't detect when they are aiming at You, neither Varta or Shtora have such angle to send signal in to missile optical device when it is attacking vehicle with top attack mode on.

In airplanes there are the systems which find out rmissiles with passive aiming. And speed of those rockets is hypersound, but not "slow" ATGM. So technically to process such system under a tank possibly

 

[Damian]

In airplanes there are the systems which find out rmissiles with passive aiming. And speed of those rockets is hypersound, but not "slow" ATGM. So technically to process such system under a tank possibly

In theory, but nobody ever done this on real vehicle. AFAIK only Americans and Germans were experimenting on different than radar, methods of threats detection and recognition for hard kill (not soft kill) active protection systems. AMAP-ADS use only electrooptical sensors, while Quick Kill was using both radar and elektrooptical sensors. But these sensors are different than thouse on Varta and Shtora, they do not detect laser mark, but missile, RPG or tank round itself.

The closest analog used on airplanes for such sensors are US DAS system for F-35.

 

[hest]

You seems to treat western designers as ineducated idiots, who do not know how to find a countermessure to countermessure, do You?

Only uneducated person is you who says only nosense about subject because it is clear that you have not received any technical education, thus not able to say anything of value.

Countermeasures exist, it is adoption of different guidance system which is not vulnerable to such disruption. In fact only missiles using this outdated wire, radio guidance are being replaced in all the world.

Russian active protection systems are obsolete piece of junk, and this is a fact. The only more capable active protection system is Zaslon, as it's module can be installed on turret roof.

As for new generation of armor... such thing do not exist in Russia, in Ukraine, yes, in Russia, no, and it is proved by Russian language sources.

Just accept the fact that after the fall of soviet Union and economic collapse, You do not have the same capabilities as in soviet times, neither You have the same capabilities as west.

Ha ha, little unmature pole. Of course with all your knowledge you will explain as rest of us members do ??

Or you will continue arguing with facts and explanations with your nosense while providing no information of value ?

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armamen...77harrison.pdf

Now I see for what they needed old Drozd. They are at such technological level that they need to study 3 decades old developement for their future systems.

 

[militarysta]

In theory, but nobody ever done this on real vehicle. AFAIK only Americans and Germans were experimenting on different than radar, methods of threats detection and recognition for hard kill (not soft kill) active protection systems. AMAP-ADS use only electrooptical sensors, while Quick Kill was using both radar and elektrooptical sensors. But these sensors are different than thouse on Varta and Shtora, they do not detect laser mark, but missile, RPG or tank round itself.

The closest analog used on airplanes for such sensors are US DAS system for F-35.

AMAP-ADS in heay variant can destroy even EFP projectile - so target whit velocity biger then 2000m/s.

BTW: Ukrainian Warta is very close to our polish Obra.

 

[Damian]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012mcsc/Shrader.pdf

New SCWS commander cupola for M1A1 series looks impressive, full stabilization, good commander protection, thermal sight and probably new day sight.

 

[Damian]

Only uneducated person is you who says only nosense about subject because it is clear that you have not received any technical education, thus not able to say anything of value.

Countermeasures exist, it is adoption of different guidance system which is not vulnerable to such disruption. In fact only missiles using this outdated wire, radio guidance are being replaced in all the world.

Of course that different methods of guidance are adopted, but not in Russia.

Ha ha, little unmature pole. Of course with all your knowledge you will explain as rest of us members do ??

Or you will continue arguing with facts and explanations with your nosense while providing no information of value ?

Oh, so You finally shows Your nationalism... or rather rascism, very common thing in todays Russia.

And I provided enough informations, contrary to Your silly advertisement of obsolete systems.

Now I see for what they needed old Drozd. They are at such technological level that they need to study 3 decades old developement for their future systems.

Again rascism?

This is one of many systems developed in USA little rascist. In fact it is far more advanced than Drozd, because American system do not destroy projectile, but only damage it's fuze, so projectile will not detonate.

There are other Active Protection Systems developed in USA, like Iron Curtain or Quick Kill, developed by different companies or R&D organizations.

But of course typical for You, only rascist comments without any understanding of what is written there>

May I call You primitive then? Because in fact You are primitive.

Quick Kill use advanced radar/electrooptical guidance system for unguided and guided anti-projectiles with capability to defeat RPG's, ATGM's and KEP's, and have full 360 degrees protected zone, as well as completely protected vehicle top surface due to VLS launchers design inspired by battleships VLS systems.

Iron Curtain is most probably based on Linear Shaped charge technology and is inspired by Dash-Dot APS concept from 1950's. Again more advanced than primitive Drozd or Arena, and Iron Curtain can be installed also on lightly armored vehicles.

 

[militarysta]

Now I see for what they needed old Drozd. They are at such technological level that they need to study 3 decades old developement for their future systems.

In USA is in end of developing process one of the most advanced APS known now - Quick Kill. Second is german AMAP-ADS. Rest is far far undert their level and abilities. Arena is obsolate and old, and have serious disadvantages now it's only advantages is posibility to destroy 2-3 tragets in the same sector due to overlapping zones of destruction for cassette whit debris. Drozd is old and have serious disadvantages. Zaslon is cheap, quite good and can deal whit target whit Vmax slower then 1450m/s but in fact it can't deal whit multi atacks in the same area. It's one channel system (for one module) not multichannel. Trophy have very advanced FCS, quite good range, MEFP can destroy almout all thread but can't deal whit EFP and APFSDS and...it's not multihannel - minimum interval is 2,5s for side sector. So if FCS make wrong decision what is main warhed and what is precursor/fake warhed then it will be not good. And of course Trophy can't deal whit ex: Kornet-MR when is salvo whit up to 3-4 missaile in some interval. Iron Fist, KAPS are quite good but can't deal whit multiattacks (max 2 targets in the same area for knowing now configuration).

The most advanced are Quick Kill and AMAP-ADS. Those two systems are future of the APS's.


@Damian -are You sure this KEP for Quick Kill? Im not so sure due to lunhed time from VLS. APFSDS whit velocity bigger then 1,500m/s or even 1600m/s give very short time to react. IMHO it can be to shor thime to unhed WLS missaile and destroy targest.

 

[Damian]

Quick Kill advantage over other APS systems is that it is based on something we can call "bee hive concept". Because of it's fully modular design in form of replacable VLS launchers, Quick Kill can be installed everywhere on vehicle (storage baskets, storage bins, vehicle hull or turret sides, rear). VLS launchers do not have blind zones, can engage targets from any direction, besides vehicle bottom of course.

Also important factors is that VLS launchers are independant from each other, so they can engage multiple threats at one time, as well if VLS launchers from one side of vehicle are damaged, this not compromise vehicle protection because launchers from the other side, can also provide full protection all around vehicle.

VLS system have also other potential, with long range guided projectiles it can provide not only protection for the one single vehicle, but for example for platoon or even bigger formations.

The only disadvantage it have compared to AMAP-ADS, it is lack of ability to protect against EFP's.

http://defense-update.com/products/q/quick_kill_171108_update.html

A bit older article about Quick Kill.

 

[hest]

In USA is in end of developing process one of the most advanced APS known now - Quick Kill. Second is german AMAP-ADS. Rest is far far undert their level and abilities. Arena is obsolate and old, and have serious disadvantages now it's only advantages is posibility to destroy 2-3 tragets in the same sector due to overlapping zones of destruction for cassette whit debris. Drozd is old and have serious disadvantages. Zaslon is cheap, quite good and can deal whit target whit Vmax slower then 1450m/s but in fact it can't deal whit multi atacks in the same area. It's one channel system (for one module) not multichannel. Trophy have very advanced FCS, quite good range, MEFP can destroy almout all thread but can't deal whit EFP and APFSDS and...it's not multihannel - minimum interval is 2,5s for side sector. So if FCS make wrong decision what is main warhed and what is precursor/fake warhed then it will be not good. And of course Trophy can't deal whit ex: Kornet-MR when is salvo whit up to 3-4 missaile in some interval. Iron Fist, KAPS are quite good but can't deal whit multiattacks (max 2 targets in the same area for knowing now configuration).

The most advanced are Quick Kill and AMAP-ADS. Those two systems are future of the APS's.

Talk about systems which are not even developed is not relevant to deployed systems, unless you want comparison, Drozd which will work, or Quick kill projectile which does not even fly properly.

It is nothing special in characteristics and has not even passed tests (besides reports of inmaturity of components). It is not even certain if funding was retired along with cancellation of failed FCS programme, same as many of systems developed for it.

And Arena was modernised, I showed it earlier. It is in fact mature system.

 

[hest]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012mcsc/Shrader.pdf

New SCWS commander cupola for M1A1 series looks impressive, full stabilization, good commander protection, thermal sight and probably new day sight.

I still do not understand why such failed design. Why they are unable to make operation through commanders sight, making it simpler and more reliable, less expensive than incorporating redundant thermal.

In Soviet, Russian, Ukrainian, and German (Leopard 2, FL) weapon station is operated remotedly through commander's sight.

 

[Damian]

I still do not understand why such failed design. Why they are unable to make operation through commanders sight, making it simpler and more reliable, less expensive than incorporating redundant thermal.

This is a cupola You idiot... Not RWS. SCWS is redesigned and upgraded CWS, with full stabilization and new sights (day and thermal). It is far more superior to obsolete commander cupolas in T-xx tanks.

In Soviet, Russian, Ukrainian, and German (Leopard 2, FL) weapon station is operated remotedly through commander's sight.

Again wrong. Leopard 2 use FLW RWS that have it's own operations terminal and own sigting system, independant from PERI.

It only shows Your pitifull "knowledge".

Not to mention that You completely not understand CROWS concept, as it names suggest (Common Remotely Operated Weapon System) it is common for different platforms, be it M1A2SEP v2 or M1126 Stryker or HMMWV's and MRAP's, it is not dedicated system.

Besides this, it have it's own FCS, making it precise weapon.

Oh and one more thing, what makes You think that CROWS-2 on M1A2SEP v2 is not operated from currently existing commander terminal used also for CITV? Because I didn't seen on any photo of M1A2SEP v2 in service, any additional terminal for CROWS-2.

Talk about systems which are not even developed is not relevant to deployed systems, unless you want comparison, Drozd which will work, or Quick kill projectile which does not even fly properly.

It is nothing special in characteristics and has not even passed tests (besides reports of inmaturity of components). It is not even certain if funding was retired along with cancellation of failed FCS programme, same as many of systems developed for it.

And Arena was modernised, I showed it earlier. It is in fact mature system.

1) Drozd as Arena are obsolete system, junk in fact, advertised by people like You because there is no other alternative for them in Russia, that have limited capability to fund it's R&D projects. Quick Kill was developed as more perspective system, which is still in R&D phase, problems with projectiles were solved long time ago. Now US Army is testing several US made and non US made systems to find the best solution.

2) Quick Kill survived cancellation of Future Combat Systems program, along with several other subsystems like hybrid engine technology.

3) Arena as I said is obsolete junk, maybe good for Russians, not for countries with more advanced technology in possesion.

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

FLW station on Leopard 2A7, we can see that FLW have it's own optics, independent from commander PERI.

And on upgraded Leopard 2A4:

FLW station, just like CROWS was also developed as common RWS for different platforms, from tanks to light wheeled vehicles.

It only shows how "deep" is knowledge about non soviet tanks of Lidsky, and his real face as of typical nationalist and even "technological" rascist, with typical behavior of bashing with mud NATO, and especially US developments.

 

[Damian]

This photo shows that FLW station is aimed and fired independently to tank commander PERI. It might be not even operated by tank commander but by loader for example.

Again it shows level of "knowledge" of Lidsky, who is good only in advertising obsolete products.

 

[militarysta]

Talk about systems which are not even developed is not relevant to deployed systems, unless you want comparison, Drozd which will work, or Quick kill projectile which does not even fly properly.

Lidsky - AMAP-ADS is after developed phase and after test phase. It's done system. Quick Kill on 90% will be part M1A3 becouse it's finished now. So yes we can compare.

It is nothing special in characteristics

Yes it is:
a) VLS missaile so it's able to deal whit serious multiattack - there is no other APS whit sucht abilities...
b) two types countmesures -short and long range.

And Arena was modernised, I showed it earlier. It is in fact mature system.

Arena FCS was outated so in fact modernisation was necessery. And modernisation in that shape is stupid becouse in erlier shape all cassette have overlapping zones so it was possible to defeted 2 or even 3 ATGM's in the same area. Now Arena have only 4 modules whit as I remember 3 casette. And on model we can se that whole modules are lighty armoured but whitout any mehanism to move in some area -so propably whole turret must turn in the direction and after that cassette is lunched. And cassette ae still not giuded -there are simple lunhed only to top whit one ange. So in fact this modernistion have better FCS and...less casette. And posibilites whit anti multiattack is questionable due to casette lunched from one module (time interval need)

 

[hest]

In fact already exists much better solution:

It is remotedly operated through commander's sight, simpler, more reliable, better protected.

CROWS is bulky system with redundant thermal, which needs additional protection and is heavier and more expensive, while not being any better.

This photo shows that FLW station is aimed and fired independently to tank commander PERI. It might be not even operated by tank commander but by loader for example.

Again it shows level of "knowledge" of Lidsky, who is good only in advertising obsolete products.

Maybe not currently realised, but I have seen projects, operated through commander's sight.

 

[Damian]

In fact already exists much better solution:

It is remotedly operated through commander's sight, simpler, more reliable, better protected.

CROWS is bulky system with redundant thermal, which needs additional protection and is heavier and more expensive, while not being any better.

Commander cupola like this is analog to SCWS, not to CROWS or any other system.

Besides You seems to completely not understand. CROWS is not only for tanks, but is common system for different platforms, it improves logistics, is cheaper because can be purchased in much grater numbers, can be installed on much grater variety of vehicles.

Maybe not currently realised, but I have seen projects, operated through commander's sight.

If You would be educated moron, then You woyld know that project is one, and final product is second.

The same can be done with CROWS, in M1A2SEP v2 there is only one terminal from which CROWS can be operated, it is commander terminal for CBCB2 and CITV, so it means that or commander can switch through CITV/CROWS channel, or CROWS is slaved to CITV, or both options are avaiable.

In Leopard 2, it can be opposite, so FLW is operated by loader not commander, or it can be even more different, depending what solution was choosen by Germans.

But this is advantage of RWS systems like CROWS or FLW over cupola You are advertising here. CROWS and FLW are modular systems, designed to be installed on different platforms. You can install CROWS on everything, from tank, through APC to a vessel or even bunker or guarding container. You can't do this with cupola You are advertising here as something better. Not it is not better, and nobody gives a damn about cupolas these days. Whole world is goind to RWS systems.

Only idiot Lidsky is still in love with obsolete systems.


As we can see CROWS can be mounted on different platforms, and have several capabilities that russian made powered cupola do not have. It have thermal sight, as well as something that look like ammo counting device.

 

[hest]

Lidsky - AMAP-ADS is after developed phase and after test phase. It's done system. Quick Kill on 90% will be part M1A3 becouse it's finished now. So yes we can compare.

When it will actually pass tests, you will talk. Now it is not existant system for army.

Whenever when we should see M1A3...

Yes it is:
a) VLS missaile so it's able to deal whit serious multiattack - there is no other APS whit sucht abilities...
b) two types countmesures -short and long range.

On paper any system can be as good as anyone would want. Big difference is to develope.

Arena FCS was outated so in fact modernisation was necessery. And modernisation in that shape is stupid becouse in erlier shape all cassette have overlapping zones so it was possible to defeted 2 or even 3 ATGM's in the same area. Now Arena have only 4 modules whit as I remember 3 casette. And on model we can se that whole modules are lighty armoured but whitout any mehanism to move in some area -so propably whole turret must turn in the direction and after that cassette is lunched. And cassette ae still not giuded -there are simple lunhed only to top whit one ange. So in fact this modernistion have better FCS and...less casette. And posibilites whit anti multiattack is questionable due to casette lunched from one module (time interval need)

It is talk with no understanding of system.

For what you call multiattack, problem is not time interval, it is irrelevant, but sensor.

After destruction of target, sensor for a short interval is left blind, unable to track target. In fact it depends on sensor placement, and neutralisation method. And Quick Kill has nothing which should make us thing it is more capable on paper (as it is not developed).