The New Arena active protection system

GarryB wrote:

That’s the problem. How do we design the cassettes to do that? It will be much easier to turn the bins, it will not be more complicated than turn the RWS on the turret of the T-90.

Each layer of munitions has three munitions and each munition in that layer can be designed to launch to a different angle... position one to the left, position 2 to the centre and position 3 to the right. The same direction for each position in each layer so position one will always go to the left on layer 1-4.
No moving parts required, so no complication at all.
If the perfect munition is all used up then adjacent munitions could be fired on the off chance that they might contact the incoming threat with enough fragments to be effective because of the spread of the fragments.

I don't think that the Armeta's bins build like that.

The Arena IMO operated in very simple way; the bin will launch the cassette in the same direction, to the same range, in the same elevation, and will always detonate the cassette at the same distance from the tank. The computer will have to calculate the timing for the launch.

This new Arena is no different... just think of it as being a case that each of the individual munitions are moved from where they were into 4 separate boxes, but they are sitting in those boxes angled so they don't all launch straight up to the same place... they are angled so that each one in each layer launches up to a different sector so that full 360 degree coverage is attained. Of course the size of the munitions could mean that each bin covers 90 degrees so the four bins offer full coverage and can be used 3 times each before needing reloading.

Your idea is very good, the question is can it be done in the Arena’s bins. The problem is that these cassettes, which can be seen in the pictures of Mr. Kahn, are standing one after the other, and looking to the same direction,And cover the same arc.
Your idea is very good and I like the metal storm idea, but can’t do it on the current Arena bins.

There is one big different between claymore and RPG, claymore need to hit people and the system will spread the fragments on a larger area, to shoot dawn RPG you need to concentrate the splinters so they will do serious damage to the RPG and drove it down. So the arc will be no more than 10 degrees each side.

The combined closing speed should ensure effectiveness, a modern shaped charge warhead is fairly fragile and smashing it with what equates to an enormous shotgun blast 6m away from its target and detonating it should make it fairly ineffective by the time it reaches the armour.

That's could be done no doubt, but you need to concentrate your stream and not spred it.

A HEAT charge relies on very precise shaping of the explosive and precise detonation timing and location to ensure a clean fully formed plasma torch with heat and mass to penetrate solid metal protection.
Even just detonating the warhead from the side instead of the rear will generally render it almost ineffective, let alone blowing holes in its shape.

You right, but "get the force with you concentrate the stream."

That’s good to know, but the bins are not deep enough to except more then one cassette in depth.

How big are the munitions?

I don't knew but the american claymore (m-18) is 22cm long

that's true, but the ADS will make any attack more complicated and more costly to the attackers.

Indeed, it is another layer of protection that enables the Tank to remain king of the battlefield.

Tanks in urban fighting will stay 2 km away and give support to the troops with there big guns.

Unless they can find some high ground in an overwatch position generally the shape of the land like hills and of course buildings will get in the way of tanks directly supporting infantry in an urban area.
Equally tanks need troops to operate with them to protect them from enemy infantry.

For the fighting zone, hybrid vehicle with the turret of the BMP-3 and the T-72 chassis, plus RWS with 14.5mm HMG will be the right one. The best vehicles in the urban fighting is the D-9s. In any case soldiers shouldn’t be to close to vehicles with ERA or ADS.

The best "fire power" vehicle for infantry in urban combat are BMPT like vehicles. Infantry have little to fear from modern ERA which don't actually explode anymore... the newest stuff deform internally and are called NERA.

the BMPT don't have the power of the 100mm gun. it will do a better with tanks, In urban aera I'll take the BMP-3 turret.

Look at the dust kicked up from the fragments hitting the ground, you can clearly see just how wide ARENA's fragment cloud is. There's a reason ARENA was deemed "to dangerous for infantry" by the west.

First of all the west are idiots.
Second look at a video of a T-90 firing a standard round. The muzzle flash is a ball of orange fire about 6-10m long that extends to about 20m around the entire tank because of the length of the barrel. Standing within 25-30m of an operational tank that could open fire without warning at any time is lethal for all unprotected infantry... whether it has ERA, or APS or even if it just gets hit by an enemy HEAT round that sprays fragments everywhere too.
You will notice that while Russian infantry still might ride on the top of APCs, they don't do the same on tanks... even on exercise.

Actually in urban area it is infantry, who protect tanks against AT teams.

Precisely.

Currently tanks go in there because they are the only army vehicles with the protection levels to survive such a dangerous place. In terms of firepower an IFV would be much more useful but its light armour makes it too vulnerable for such a mission.

The new plans for vehicles in the Russian army mean that the armata based IFV or in fact the BMPT if there is one would be an ideal substitute for a MBT in that it has the mobility and protection of a tank, but has fire power more suited to supporting infantry operations down to very close ranges.

The interesting thing is that the BMPT was designed to take the infantry out of the equation.

Urban combat is dangerous and costly because infantry are too vulnerable, but they are needed to protect the tanks from enemy infantry.

The BMPT is supposed to protect the tanks, but in reality it should be able to protect itself and make the use of tanks unnecessary. In other words the BMPT should in one go replace the tank and the supporting infantry it needs to operate in urban areas...[/quote]

Here's some higher res images of the ARENA-E model that were not in the OP. Sorry about the size, but it's worth seeing.















It's easy to see in this pic, that the bottom left bin behind the gunner's hatch cannot rotate towards the front of the tank, as the sensors block it on either side. This, and that the bins look like nothing more than simple steel boxes welded to the turret lead me to believe they do not rotate.





The engineers at KBM might have changed the cassettes, made them larger, gave them a wider spread, made them rotate in flight,no one knows. The engineers might have just gone with a simple and cheap layout. ARENA is two decades old there's been a lot of developments since then, and as far as we know, this new setup might not actually exist.

Anyways, the system may not cover 100%, it may not protect against top attack munitions, it may not do this that or the other thing. But it sure as hell wont cost half a million dollars to put on a tank either. I would rather have a system that stops 80% of the incoming rounds and is cheap enough to put on the battlefield, than one that can stop 100% of the incoming rounds, and never leaves the lab.

Again, I didn’t see any evidence that the arc is let say 60 degrees, the video is nice, but I can’t learn much about the coverage. I do know that the DROZD’s rocket has 20 degrees opening and they are 17 kg rocket. So the best I can give the Arena’s cassette is 30 degrees.

Assuming just 30 degree coverage for each munition it is possible that each of the three munitions in each bin is not launched up to cover the same arc and angling their launching trajectories should enable three munitions each covering 30 degrees to cover a 90 degree sector.

But even with 60 degrees you can’t defend the sides of the tank unless you turn the rear bins.

The video shows the original ARENA and the old munitions... the footage of the old munitions being handled compared with the munitions in the model make me think the new munitions are actually much wider than the old munitions and they could certainly be of a different design that influences the angles they are effective at. They might operate much lower and have a much larger amount of fragments to increase the width and density of fragments for all we know.

120mm mortar are very welcome in the fighting. Tanks, mortars, rockets will be enough in the fight.

The model of the armata BMPT seems to show a rifled 120mm gun/mortar system along with a 23mm calibre gatling and 40/30mm grenade launcher, all with high elevation.

It is always better for a unit to have direct fire weapons with it that is always ready to use.

In a single Brigade there can be three or four companies that might all want fire support at once... if you have your own BMPT you can provide your own firepower.

The D-9 will do much better job.

Not really applicable. If you are talking about ongoing anti terrorist operations with FSB and MVD troops then tractors can and do make sense, but for an Army optimised for full scale combat it makes rather more sense to use tanks and indeed tank based engineer vehicles for such jobs.

I don't think that the Armeta's bins build like that.

Sorry... what?

We really don't know anything at all about the armata... we are talking about a model of a tank with upgraded ARENA-2 fitted. It is not even a T-90AM/SM, let alone an armata.

I rather suspect the armata will have a very different arrangement with the sensors all integrated so there is 360 degree coverage of optics, thermals, mmw radar etc etc, likely with DIRCM and anti sniper and laser detection features included.

Your idea is very good, the question is can it be done in the Arena’s bins. The problem is that these cassettes, which can be seen in the pictures of Mr. Kahn, are standing one after the other, and looking to the same direction,And cover the same arc.
Your idea is very good and I like the metal storm idea, but can’t do it on the current Arena bins.

Keep in mind this is a model and no details have been released on the actual system.

Looking at the model again the bins mounted at the side appear to fire forward, while the bins at the rear appear to face sideways.

It is all together possible that this system might take advantage of improvements in MMW radar technology and might detect targets to greater range that will allow the system to turn the turret towards the threat as it approaches and that while it has 360 degree MMW radar coverage that the munitions only cover the front and sides...

Can't really say anything till we see the spec sheet at an arms show.

That's could be done no doubt, but you need to concentrate your stream and not spred it.

You concentrate if you lack power, you spread to hit a small fast moving target.

Think of it in terms of shooting animals... if you only have a small calibre rifle then you shoot the elephant as many times as you can as fast as you can. If the target is a flying bird however you pick the lightest pellet weight that will reliably bring it down and then you direct as many of those pellets as you can in its direction.

HEAT warheads are actually fairly fragile and you don't need particularly heavy fragments to damage it. That doesn't mean you make the fragment payload light... it means you get more fragments.

If it works like the old ARENA the fragments need to be effective over a very very short distance... we are talking about from about 6m in the air down to the ground so they can be very light but hard and moving very very fast.

Normally heavier fragments are better because they retain velocity better and are more useful from greater distances. If the effective flight path of the fragments is only 6m or so then it makes more sense to use light fragments and make them effective with more velocity... which makes it easier to pack more fragments in and cover a much wider area than with larger heavier fragments.

You right, but "get the force with you concentrate the stream."

You can get force with high velocity instead of more impacts in a concentrated frag group.

I don't knew but the american claymore (m-18) is 22cm long

Looking at the models again those bins are largely filled up... the question is are we looking at very large munitions, three to a bin, or are we looking at much smaller munitions that are stacked in three layers already?

Again... we can't really say for sure without further information.

the BMPT don't have the power of the 100mm gun. it will do a better with tanks, In urban aera I'll take the BMP-3 turret.

The BMPT based on the T-90 chassis was rejected. The BMP-3 turret is too vulnerable to enemy fire.

The model of an armata vehicle with a 120mm rifled gun/mortar, plus 23mm gatling gun, and 40/30mm grenade launcher would in my opinion be an ideal solution to the problem at hand.

Here's some higher res images of the ARENA-E model that were not in the OP. Sorry about the size, but it's worth seeing.

Never apologise for better photos..

It's easy to see in this pic, that the bottom left bin behind the gunner's hatch cannot rotate towards the front of the tank, as the sensors block it on either side. This along with the fact that the bins look like nothing more than simple steel boxes welded to the turret lead me to believe they do not rotate.

I agree. These bins are fixed and I think that is a good thing as it simplifies things.

Having fixed arcs of fire simplifies the calculations for interceptions that already has to deal with variables like the hull and tank of the vehicle potentially moving independently in addition to the rapidly closing threat.

The engineers might have just gone with a simple and cheap layout. ARENA is two decades old there's been a lot of developments since then, and as far as we know, this new setup might not actually exist.

I would deduce they are revealing it now because it is for sale, they are not a charity... and I suspect the fact that it is not shown on a model of a T-90SM or T-90AM that it is for use in existing vehicles as an upgrade, so they might be offering it to the Russian Army to go with the upgrade they have decided on for the T-72s till armata is ready, and also likely as an upgrade option for export. For a country like Afghanistan where RPGs are on going problems buying and installing this kit is rather cheaper than going for all new 70 ton western tanks. They get to keep their existing tanks they don't need to worry about learning to maintain new vehicles or how 70 ton tanks will collapse all their bridges.

Anyways, the system may not cover 100%, it may not protect against top attack munitions, it may not do this that or the other thing. But it sure as hell wont cost half a million dollars to put on a tank either. I would rather have a system that stops 80% of the incoming rounds and is cheap enough to put on the battlefield, than one that can stop 100% of the incoming rounds, and never leaves the lab.

Totally agree with that logic. RPGs are very common on todays battlefield and will not go away any time soon. If it offers protection from these sorts of threats then it is a very valuable asset as most of your casualties will come from such threats.

Looking at these new photos it is pretty clear the the lower bins at the sides of the tank are facing forward and that the two rear bins are at an angle of about 45 degrees.

For ease of production and simplification of loading I would suspect that all the munitions would be the same, in which case if you wanted full coverage you would probably want 5 bins with the four bins remaining where they are but the two rear bins angled more outwards so they cover the sides better and a bin on the rear to cover behind the turret.

I rather suspect the bin arrangement has been designed to not get in the way of existing equipment on the tank and that for some tanks it might be possible to have more bins.

Keep in mind that ARENA-E is scalable. Users could very easily and cheaply add two more bins on the side, by moving the forward facing bins more towards the front, closer to the ERA and putting a second bin between that and the smoke dispensers, facing out 90 degrees on either side.

The radars do not individually aim the cassettes, but instead rapidly paint a 360 degree picture and send the data to a central processor which calculates the angle and velocity of the target, checks which bin covers that angle, and calculates a firing solution before launching the cassette to intercept the target all in a fraction of a second. When the customer actually installs ARENA-E, they will have to program the system for their own tanks anyways as there's such a variety of turret shapes and equipment. Adding more bins just means a bit more programing and a few more welds. The placement of the bins and radars is probably just plotted on a 3D grid pattern or model, and programed into the actual tank via laptop after everything is hooked up.

Arguing about coverage on this T-90S model is kind of useless, as each system will be different depending on what the operator wants. The bins are just steel boxes, and they'll have thousands of cassettes in stock, all the cost is in the MMW radars and the processor. Do you think the setup for HMMWV's will be the same? No, it'll be much smaller with lighter bins, they may only have one or two cassettes a piece. That's the beautiful thing about ARENA-E and scalable systems in general. If you asked me a year ago what the most appealing APS is, I would have said LEDS or Aspro, after seeing this, I think I'm going to change my answer.

I agree, but think the munitions and therefore the bins will be standardised, so vehicle with no turret could have the sensors and bins fitted to the upper hull.

I suspect the positioning of the forward facing bins is to avoid blocking optics and sensors.

Therefore I suspect that on tanks with panoramic sights fitted like on upgraded T-72s that the rear facing bins would be lower and would not block the commanders panoramic sight line, but that otherwise the customer is the one determining the sort of coverage they want or need, which in turn will be determined by the positioning of the bins.

Anyways, the system may not cover 100%, it may not protect against top attack munitions,...

Someone therefore, should advice of this fact KBM.....





We talk here of the old version of Arena-E APS or the modernized one ?

Them are,obviously, very different in theirs capabilities to neutralize ATGM and RPG conceived AFTER the design of the first version of Arena (and its export version Arena-E).

On youtube someone commented that currently no tanks in the russian army have the arena. It really sucks if this is true.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:On youtube someone commented that currently no tanks in the russian army have the arena. It really sucks if this is true.

Oh but you can also add that no Russian tank ,at today mount "Nakidka" radar/IR masking suit.......but give to Russian Federation even only a far prospect of a conflict against a serious enemy and you will see them mounted on all first line MBTs within less than 48 hours


At now the only nation that is in a situation requiring that APS was mounted latest operative MBTs is Israel ; for any other ,Russia included, do that would represnt only a costly measure ,requiring moreover useless logistical maintenance efforts, unjustified by any pressing risk.

The BMPT based on the T-90 chassis was rejected. The BMP-3 turret is too vulnerable to enemy fire.

True, but concept of BMPT is not, so its further development is now connected with Armata. We will see, what they will develop from BMPT.


It's true, that BMPT is there to replace infantry, but not in every environment. In open battlefield tanks will drive fast, so infantry could not follow them, but to have them inside weaker IFVs doesn't have sense. So instead of IFVs, BMPTs could do their role and are better protected without infantry inside. In mountains regions and in urban battlefield, BMPTs will work with infantry instead of tanks, because they have the same armor, but higher elevation of their main armament with higher rate of fire.

Mindstorm wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:On youtube someone commented that currently no tanks in the russian army have the arena. It really sucks if this is true.

Oh but you can also add that no Russian tank ,at today mount "Nakidka" radar/IR masking suit.......but give to Russian Federation even only a far prospect of a conflict against a serious enemy and you will see them mounted on all first line MBTs within less than 48 hours


At now the only nation that is in a situation requiring that APS was mounted latest operative MBTs is Israel ; for any other ,Russia included, do that would represnt only a costly measure ,requiring moreover useless logistical maintenance efforts, unjustified by any pressing risk.

Mindstorm, I am afraid I do not share your optimism.
Any serious opponent will e met by nuclear deterrent anyways.

I wouldn't consider a poster to be a guarantee it can effective stop top-attack ATGMS, but I'm not saying it can't do it either. Even the old Arena could stop them under certain circumstances. I've seen plenty of information and footage that show Javelin, Spike, etc. come within the reach of ARENA, it appears their flight paths are not always as steep as fans of the missiles like to claim.

On youtube someone commented that currently no tanks in the russian army have the arena. It really sucks if this is true.

Currently they are in the process of deciding what to produce... they have had a gap where they didn't buy any armour (MBTs) at all, and it seems their decision is to upgrade some T-72s for the 3-4 years it will take to get Armata on line.

In other words they had the choice of expensive but capable full upgrade of T-90AM which likely would have used up a lot of funds they could have used later for more armata based vehicles.

Their decision is to choose the cheaper option of upgrading T-72s with full night vision and improved ERA and likely new ARENA and digital communications systems to allow the use of datalinks, and of course battle management systems to allow them to practise all the new stuff they will be able to do with armata and T-90AM.

The point is that right now the choice is T-90AM at 4 million a vehicle or upgraded T-72 which has all the main features of the T-90AM for 1.5 million.

In 4-5 years time when armata is available for production it might cost 6 million initially per vehicle so they might keep upgrading the T-72s or by then the technology will be cheaper because much of the new technology in the T-90AM can be replaced by technology created for the armata, so the electronics and sensors and NERA and APS and DIRCMS and other systems will be fitted to the T-90AM2 which might cost 2 million a vehicle because of the numbers they will build them in, so we may find that when armata production starts that T-90AM2 will start too.

I suspect the T-90SM will export fairly well anyway... the T-90S is the export model of the T-90A and the T-90SM is the upgraded model of the T-90S like the T-90AM model is the upgraded model of the domestic T-90A.

This new ARENA will likely be part of the T-72 upgrade.

The armata and probably T-90AM will likely have a newer system able to deal with diving top attack threats and APFSDS rounds according to sources.

At now the only nation that is in a situation requiring that APS was mounted latest operative MBTs is Israel

Agreed, but would add most vehicles that enter combat in Afghanistan could use them as well. Just driving around the main danger is IEDs, but in combat the risk of RPGs increases as well.

True, but concept of BMPT is not, so its further development is now connected with Armata. We will see, what they will develop from BMPT.

Agreed, the idea of a vehicle that can give close in support of heavy armour in terrain or environments where their long range vision and long range heavy firepower is no longer of use translates to a lot of other situations... think of a sniper with a heavy calibre bolt action rifle... very well armed, very well trained, but if he has to cut through a forest where visibility is perhaps 30m then he is incredibly vulnerable to even a small group of enemy soldiers armed with SMGs. A tank has heavy armour and a sniper has stealth training... the concept of the BMPT is to add a spotter with an assault rifle to the sniper team... not so they can go around fighting enemy units, but to cover the escape of the sniper in dangerous (to the sniper) situations, and also to find targets for the sniper in good situations.

Of course my comments about the firepower options of the armata BMPT based on models shown rather than actual vehicles would be akin to taking away the bolt action heavy rifle and giving both men a semi auto DMR rifle like an SVDS and perhaps adding a Vityaz SMG to their weapon load to increase their potential weapon load... especially with a 20 round mags for the SVDS... or perhaps a change in calibre to a high velocity 6 x 49mm round optimised for the 1,000-1,200m range.

It's true, that BMPT is there to replace infantry, but not in every environment. In open battlefield tanks will drive fast, so infantry could not follow them, but to have them inside weaker IFVs doesn't have sense. So instead of IFVs, BMPTs could do their role and are better protected without infantry inside. In mountains regions and in urban battlefield, BMPTs will work with infantry instead of tanks, because they have the same armor, but higher elevation of their main armament with higher rate of fire.

Yes... I agree... the BMPT concept is interesting in that while designed to replace infantry to protect tanks (BMPT means tank support combat vehicle), that in many situations it could equally replace tanks and support infantry operations.

In many ways that is what the BMP-3 is, though it doesn't have the armour of a tank, it certainly has the variety of armament to support infantry in a much wider range of situations than a tank could.

I wouldn't consider a poster to be a guarantee it can effective stop top-attack ATGMS, but I'm not saying it can't do it either.

The formulation of the poster would be based on the features of the product... it might not stop it every time, but then as I have mentioned on this forum several times the Javelin requires a heat signature to aim at to allow fire and forget performance... SHTORA is an EO system that defeats some types of guided weapons by dazzling the IR component of their guidance systems.

For example Milan is a wire guided missile. When fired the missile trails a wire along which command signals can be sent to guide the missile, so initially the missile is lofted into the foreground in front of the launcher. The launcher has an optical port for a sensor called a gionometer that is basically an infrared camera that detects the small flare on the tail of the missile. The guidance system uses the position of that flare to work out where the missile is in its field of view. based on the position of the flare in relation to the centre of the crosshairs of the aiming system the guidance system can work out the flight commands needed to move the missile onto the target. If the target is stationary it can more the missile in flight till it flys down the crosshairs to hit the target.

The thing is that to guide the missile the launcher needs to know where the missile is and it knows this via the IR flare on the tail of the missile.

If the target detects the launch or the IR signature of the incoming missile and automatically turns the turret to face the incoming threat and the two main IR light light up the problem for the Milan launcher is that it is now like a man with binoculars trying to see stars in the middle of the day next to the sun. The Milan post will lose sight of its missile and it will likely hit the ground.

Milan is a fairly slow missile because it is dragging a wire... Javelin is a very slow missile also and whether homing on its own using a thermal sight or being manually guided (ie like Milan) it is still vulnerable to IR dazzlers and indeed smoke... which is not to say they aren't capable and dangerous weapons.

Most weapons are not as good or as bad as their friendly or competitor marketing will suggest...

Certainly, DIRCM's are going to have crippling effect on IR guided ATGM, specifically the steep diving variety.

They're all ready in service on the KA-52, not much longer and we will see them on AFVs as well. I don't even need to mention Nakidka.

Actually the PAPV precedes the airborne version... it detects optics with a laser and vibrating mirror... ie direct a laser beam onto a mirror that is rapidly vibrating in one plane and you get a line of laser light instead of a point. If you pan that mirror the line scans like a radar. A simple laser optical port as used on a laser range finder to detect the reflected laser energy can then be used to "look" for strong reflections from optics like binoculars or scopes or IR sensor windows in the nose of missiles. When it completes its scan which can be very fast, it can direct another much more powerful laser at any optical system it detected.

The PAPV weighed about 30kgs and has been available for export for over a decade.

There is a thread on anti sniper systems that is about a pair of binoculars that performs the same function, and I rather suspect new Russian tanks will have similar capabilities built into their optics too.

[quote="Zivo"]Keep in mind that ARENA-E is scalable. Users could very easily and cheaply add two more bins on the side, by moving the forward facing bins more towards the front, closer to the ERA and putting a second bin between that and the smoke dispensers, facing out 90 degrees on either side. [\quote]

When I read all the comments I think that the Arena-E is the same as the old Arena just built as a kit. so it can be put on any vehicle that want to get some ADS fast and chip. I think it's a good idea and they can sell a lot of them. Think about the T-55 with ADS.
If we think this way, than the bin can be simple as can be, and the amount of them will be part of the coverage that the customer wants. I'm sure that for the Armeta the factory will install another system that will be built in the turret.

The major improvements are the software and sensors.

Armata wont be using Arena, but an APS called "Afghanistan" which apparently is capable of defeating APFSDS. What it looks like, and how it's configured, as far as I know has never been revealed.

Zivo wrote:The major improvements are the software and sensors.

Armata wont be using Arena, but an APS called "Afghanistan" which apparently is capable of defeating APFSDS. What it looks like, and how it's configured, as far as I know has never been revealed.

Get it thanks

It seem that, not only KBM has not abandoned the goal to offer abroad mass production of the modernized Arena-E ,but has also significantly improved its defeating capability against the most modern AT elements (top attack included) and the adaptability to different platforms.


http://armstass.su/?page=article&aid=125331&cid=25

Второй проект предусматривает оснащение модернизированного танка Т-72 комплексом активной защиты (КАЗ) "Арена-Э", обеспечивающего защиту танка в круговой зоне 360 град от противотанковых средств - гранат РПГ, артиллерийских кумулятивных снарядов и противотанковых управляемых ракет, в том числе срабатывающих при пролете над танком.

На DEFEXPO-2014 будет представлена новая конфигурация КАЗ, которая позволяет размещать комплекс "Арена-Э" практически на любой машине. Она отличается от КАЗ предыдущей конфигурации тем, что бортовая радиолокационная станция разнесена на несколько блоков и размещена таким образом, что не мешает танку выполнять другие боевые задачи. КАЗ "Арена-Э" в новой конфигурации может быть установлен на танках Т-72, Т-72Б, Т-90 и на других образцах бронетехники.

On the other side this choice very likely mean that the new generation of active protection systems now developed for perspective unified platforms of the "Kurganet" and "Armata" family will be not offered in an export model ,on the international market for a long time.

Nice, this system would diminish the effectiveness of most HEAT type weapons ranging from man-portable to helo carried.
I think maybe the Russians are planning to make the jump to KE projectiles soon, most of their newer HEAT weapons
are supersonic, and with a lot of space vacated in the warhead by the replacement of the shaped charge with a penetrator,
would allow for rocket fuel or maybe scramjet/ramjet engines with fuel.
Ofc. next step would be anti KE projectile capability which is Afghanistan. I wonder how west will counter it? Brute force seems
likely, they are prolly hard at work on ETC guns and very resilient penetrators. Or maybe decoys/jammer rounds?

Sounds like the system we saw photos of (on a model) a while back.... should be interesting to see it actually mounted on a real tank however.

Mindstorm wrote:
It seem that, not only KBM has not abandoned the goal to offer abroad mass production of the modernized Arena-E ,but has also significantly improved its defeating capability against the most modern AT elements (top attack included) and the adaptability to different platforms.

That should have been obvious for anyone in this discussion when it was posted their promotional Arena material.




Those promotional posters ,(its content) are not created by secretaries or janitors ,that do not know anything about Arena_E ,but usually by its own designers or technical people close to the developers.

According to KBM promotional material,Arena-E can defeat (clock wise) hellfire missiles fired from an Apache , Javelin missiles fire from foot ,hellfires from vehicle? and no idea what AT weapon is the top left one. This means that KBM developers feels confident enough to promote Arena-E active defenses against top attack missiles to dedicate a poster for it.  It clearly doesn't means that it will be immune 100% of the time ,against any scenario ,that doesn't exist.. but that is good enough to defeat them in majority of times.

And looking more at the poster it appears that they do not promote 360 coverage but more like 320.. appears to be a small side in the back of turret not covered ,but that might be just an artistic thing..  But if thats is the case.. i do not see a single problem with that. Any army with a Tank that allows the enemy to fire anti tank missiles from behind their lines ,is doing something terribly wrong and don't deserve to be leading there..  

There is a lot of misconceptions in this Discussion about how tanks operate in Urban warfare , and it had to do with not seeing them in real combat how they operate. The Syrian army (who is trained by Russia and have advisors too) use T-72M tanks with reactive armor in Rebels controlled zones ,and the fights are not 2km away , but as close as 50 meters away at times ,when they need to enter deep inside urban zones to destroy a fortification. Hit and move tactics is what they do ,they use tanks to force militants leave their positions and infantry finish them.. i have yet to see a Tank being fired a rocket grenade or AT missile from behind in Syria that never happens. All the attacks on tanks are always at the sides 80% of the times and 20% from near front.. The rear line is where is always backed by many soldiers and a command post..  Major problem for operations in Urban zones have not been Rocket grenades or AT missiles.. but mines and IED ,they delay a lot of operations in Urban zones.  Rocket Grenades are next to useless against reactive armor.. unless you do a lucky shot or use a Kornet or a heavy anti tank weapons.
Arena-E will definitively have no problem weather it can engage the rear or not ,because those are very rare shots and can only happen if there is incompetence in the mobilization of armor.. Neither see a problem with Arena and soldier safety , the only times you will need to cover behind a tank in urban zones is when there are big open spaces..and no building to use as cover..Is there an option to disable arena temporarily that will be good enough.  .Subscribe to Anna News youtube channel ,and you will some real tank operations in Urban warfare.

https://youtu.be/62kT1WFwrAw

and no idea what AT weapon is the top left one

PzF 3-IT

German Panzerfaust-3.

Rocket Grenades are next to useless against reactive armor.. unless you do a lucky shot or use a Kornet or a heavy anti tank weapons.

RPG-28 is a very powerful rocket (125mm calibre) that would likely penetrate any tank from the side including those with ERA for which it has a precursor charge to set the ERA off before the main charge fires.

APS is like ERA... it doesn't offer 100% protection, and doesn't cover 360 degrees 24/7 but it adds a layer of protection that is more effective against some attacks than others and improves the safety of the vehicle and crew.