Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:22 am

    Thats why my idea of having appliable modular guidance sensors on top of the warhead depending on target, launcher itself can be made to work with 2 types of guidance is not much of a fuss. Now imagine making 10.000 warheads for certain ATGM, and you make 2-3 types of seekers making naturally the most expencive and least used one to be built in some amount of 1-2k. That would be both fairly economical and would increase general performance of ATGMs. I am again saying this is just an idea, and if Russians do not make it, someone else will, there are alot smarter people than both me and you sitting somewhere in Darpa, Rheinmetall, Samsung, Rafale...

    The main problem is that it already works and any changes will reduce performance and increase costs. There are already two types of Metis-M1 missile... one with a HEAT warhead for heavy armour targets and a HE equipped variant for softer targets. Adding in seeker options increases costs... for what purpose?

    I agree there with you, but ill say that Americans very often evade using disposable AT weapons aganist such targets coz they are scared of casualties. Matador AT even has switch mode that optimises fuse for use aganist walls, sandbags and fortifications. So they very often end up using Javelin on 900m range aganist non armored, and non fortified targets. There is video of them in Afganistan using Javelin aganist 3-5 Talibans on nearby hill and they had plenty of HMGs and grenade launchers around on vehicles.

    It is pretty much standard practise to use man portable rockets like LAW and RPG-18 against non armoured targets of all types. ATGMs are also used for a wide variety of targets too and for the same reason... why fire and manouver 2km over open ground to hit a sniper or HMG position when you can post a missile from 2km away or more?

    Soldiers don't care about costs they care about not getting shot. Are you going to tell them not to waste taxpayers money?

    Whether it is 5K$ Metis or 80K$ javelin they wont care, but they will notice when resupply comes and they can either have 2 Javelin missiles or 50 Metis missiles... what you seem to be suggesting is that instead f 50 metis missiles they should only get 20 IIR guided top attack super missiles... BTW the sniper or HMG operator wont notice whether the missile comes through the sand bags in front or blasts down through the roof of the position they have created.

    Hey, if high enough numbers are being produced and if you make it simple enough it doesnt have to be very expencive. Americans tend to build things very complicated and overpriced, so dont judge instantly by looking at Javelin.

    When Metis was designed they already had AT-3 and AT-4 and AT-5 in service... it is still in service and exported because it does the job at a price no other system can compete.

    Thanks for all of this information, mate. I knew that the top of the tank wasn't as well armoured as other parts of the tank but I had no idea that the upper turret was so lightly protected. If you program the top-attack missile to hit precisely where the crew compartment is, wouldn't that be more effective than a frontal penetration? The ability to not only penetrate the upper turret but also its hull and 2 meters of soil beneath it is something I would want -- to completely demoralise my enemies. That's a great selling point, mate. A proximity fuse for the Kornet-D is a bloody good idea.

    Actually it would be rather more effective if it penetrated the ammo store and detonated all the ammo at once.

    AFAIK Vikhr and Ataka and Krisantema and Shturm all have proximity fuses in their anti aircraft versions.

    If I can get 20 Metis-M missiles for the same price of one similarly range Javelin than I would be far better armed than the guy with an incredibly expensive missile that is cumbersome, process slow and less effective  in most battlefield situations.  

    And this is an important aspect that many ignore... not every country can afford to spend money like the US military does, so the choice between Javelin and metis in a place like Afghanistan where the vast majority of targets will be light vehicles and firing positions having a thermal sight on the Javelin would be nice for targeting purposes but the waste of fitting them to the missiles means a unit might get one Javelin launcher and 5 missiles a year to actually use... for the same money you can have a Metis-m1 with a thermal sight and hundreds of missiles that you can actually use.

    On paper the Javelin is the "more powerful" system in terms of sophistication, but in practical terms the Metis is far better as it has a better warhead, similar range and speed and can be deployed widely in numbers so when you need it you probably have a few on hand.

    If an increase in range creates an unreasonable increase in costs than it would be best to maintain the Metis-M as it is.

    extra range is not a bad thing as such... the Metis-M1 uses lighter electronics and newer rocket fuel that burns longer to increase range from 1.5km to 2km, but they did that within the size and weight constraints of the existing system.... and without making it more expensive.

    Improvements in laser technology might mean laser beam riding might be an option for the smaller system... it just depends on the receiver technology and equipment needed in the missile.

    I still can't believe that the Konkurs was able to penetrate an M1A2 Abrams considering that it's been in service for almost half a century. I wonder if Americans will still maintain that the M1A2 cannot be penetrated by the latest Russian ATGMs now that a last generation Russian ATGM has achieved just that.

    The turret of the Abrams is huge and its rear is filled with live ammo. Tank design 101 states that the front 60 degrees of armour should stop the enemies main AT weapons but there are always weak spots where even that is not possible. From 4km away you can aim at the side of any tank and be pretty sure if there is no APS you will get a kill... and that is any tank including armata.

    Americans are now saying that the Saudi M1A2 that was taken out by the Konkurs Missile was a monkey model and that therefore its evisceration is not indicative of a true M1A2's armour credentials.

    But logically that Konkurs was not Russian Army so it would also be a reduced perforamnce monkey model...  Razz

    Having to keep the launcher pointed at the target is a bit dangerous in a dynamic and ever changing environment, and so I'm not really a fan of this system, but there doesn't seem to be a cost-effective alternative that doesn't also increase complexity and so I understand why the Russians have taken this route. ATGMs are unlikely to be as important as Russia's imperative to upgrade its ICBMs, air defence, aircraft and armoured vehicles.

    If we are talking about the new model Kornet then keeping the launcher pointed at the target is no real hardship when the target could be 8.5km away and have no idea it is under attack.

    BTW manual guidance seems OK for TOW and HOT and Milan... what has changed?

    but if we talk about pure effect on tanks i would go with Javelin or Spike.

    And why?

    Is it because their videos are better?

    Neither have the range or power of Kornet... nor do they have the speed of Kornet... if you can't get a lock and have to watch the missile all the way to the target you will be more vulnerable than a Kornet operator... at least he can be 5.5km away from the target in the early model...

    CCD/IIR seekers are expencive that goes for granted but in 2-3 years if orders are big enough for domestic and export? More production = lower price, thats general formula. Even that money wasteland F35 will eventually become more affordable if orders are big enough, well.. at least for US domestic purposes.

    You could apply such logic to any technology, the problem is the high cost prevents mass production in numbers large enough to make the cost go down...


    Last edited by GarryB on Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:38 am

    Well of course they are saying it and ignoring till his very day that Iraq did had monkey models made by Poland with no more higher quality than the already existing T-55A's they had. It is a self evident propaganda cycle jerk....anyway, those models are most probably different from the M1A2Sep2 versions but it makes absolutley no difference because not a single M1A2Sep2 be it Saudi M1A2S or american M1A2 SEP2 never recieved any armor upgrades to their side turret protection, both are absolutley equal.

    It is geting really funny when Abrams fanboys like Damian90 mention Saudi M1A2 having decreased armor when speaking about those two Konkurs  ATGM launches against both Saudi M1A2 and hitting side armor and destroying the first one and damaging the second one. The funny thing here is that this guy actually has not that bad of understanding about Tanks, doctrines, technology and design philosophy, but he is such a die hard fanboy that he purposely ignores,leaves out or portraits incidents to bring his agenda through. He mentioned that Saudi M1A2S Abrams do not have the  american HA(Heavy Armor) Package which is the Depleted Uranium which are two big armor plates placed only in the front turret next to the gun left and right, no other place for DU armor on that tank, he knows it and still portraits it as the main reason why a Konkurs could penetrate the side armor of a Saudi M1A2 S Abrams and destroy it entirely.

    The Saudi M1A2S probably do have decreased armor values but certainly not the side armor and even if you could double the side protection of the turret and hull the Konkurs and even weaker Fagot would still destroy the tank when hitting exact same way. The only tanks that could survive such a blow to the side turret armor are tanks that have APS or ERA or both against a Monobloc shaped charge like common old Konkurs.

    Agreed, from what i am aware actually there is no difference in armor between US and export model of M1A1/2 except DU layer in turret, and this tank totally did not get hit there. Actually i belive only major difference in electronic suite also is lack of "Blue force" Battle Managament System, rest should be more or less the same unless buyer requested some changes.


    Very low discipline and brainwashing to believe they are liberators, they are usually very trigger happy and just do not give a shit about the weapons they have, they just want to shoot. Just like the Apache WSO said to the Operator for the permission of engagement of the camera team "Come on, let us shoot!"

    Actually there is a term in Serbian for shooting like in that video, "Šenlučenje", word of Turkish origin, basically means "shooting to celebrate".


    [quote]Fine let us take into consideration of the effeciency against tanks of the "best" like Javelin a top attack weapon that is refered in US army research papers as being a mere "mobility or firepower killer" against tanks like the T-90, since Javelin is a Monobloc shaped charge and has greatly reduced chances of penetrating and killing a T-90 turret roof fitted with ERA and anti radiation cover mounted on top which decreases Spalling and increases protection, but even without ERA like it says.

    I quote the Javelin 2 upgrade list of US army figures which were provided by Mindstorm
    FOLLOWING ARE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE AS AN UPGRADE TO CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE SYSTEM: PORTABILITY-CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL BE A MAN-PPRTABLE SYSTEM. THE BLOCK O AND BLOCK I CLU WEIGH APPROXIMATELY 15 POUNDS. THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II ROUND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 POUNDS, WITH A DESIRED WEIGHT OF 20 POUNDS OR LESS. IMPROVED COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS (LETHALITY). CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL ACHIEVE A MOBILITY OR FIREPOWER KILL AGAINST T-90 PIP 1 TANK CAST TURRET WITH AND WITHOUT APPLIQUE ARMOR AND ALSO PROVIDE INCAPACITATING OR LETHAL EFFECTS AGAINST LIGHT/SOFT VEHICLES, PERSONNEL IN OPEN AREAS, PERSONNEL WITHIN STRUCTURES OR STANDARD EARTH AND TIMBER BUNKERS. LETHALITY.

    But take this in count, its not very likely to encounter these days enemy wastly equiped with ERA and APS, at least not by Serbia or Russia, i dont belive Germans or US will invest alot in ERA to cover Leo and Abrams rooftops, thats more of a Russian school. Not like Serbia has much of an army these days tho -.-... I just belive personally that having top attack capability in certain amount is not bad thing and pair it up with range and heavy warheads of Kornet. Bahrain is using Javelin and Kornet (i belive Javelin was just ordered recently), India is mixing Kornets and Spikes soon (Javelin failed bid due to technology transfer), Jordan is using Javelin and Kornets, Saudi Arabia... i mean i just find it convinient to add some versatility, again thats my opinion.

    IIR/CCD seekers are very common in Air to Air missiles aswell in MANPADS and they do exist since decades and in relative large numbers and still these seekers cost a freaking fortune.

    Hey i never said they will be dirt cheap, just cheaper Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:18 pm

    Javelin is slow.

    I would actually think having a soldier near your tank with a shotgun... he might have a chance of defeating Javelin.

    Also Javelin can only be fired in the top attack mode if it gets a lock... there is no reason to think that Javelin can see through modern smoke grenades smoke... pop it high and the missile is useless...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 277
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:29 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    I think you are leaving out a the exact circumstances of those engagements just like many others who try to portray something in favor over something else like F-15 kill ratio against bananarepublics against obsolete 3rd generation jets without radars or similiar comparision things.
    The konkurs ATGM was to be believed an Iranian produced one and since they got the plans for the common Konkurs we can put the armor penetration figure of around 500-600mm RHAe penetration value, enough to penetrate any tank WW1 till this very date (excluding ERA/APS) of its side turret armor.

    If you hear or we speak about one weapon defeating another, especially when Tanks are defeated, it is important to evaluade the circumstances, where the weapon has hit and under what angle because that can increase/decrease the effeciency against the tank. Both of those instances the Saudi M1A2S was hit on its side turret where the armor is weak and could not withstand a RPG-43 hand thrown AT grenade.

    Yeah, an understanding of context and circumstances is important. Context that admittedly didn’t even occur to me.  I knew that the side turret of a tank was weaker than its frontal armour, but I had no idea that it was that weak, which is where the Konkurs hit the M1A2. I'm finding it difficult to process the assertion that a WW2 hand held grenade can penetrate the turret side of a modern tank. This is kind of disappointing.


    Werewolf wrote:Well of course they are saying it and ignoring till his very day that Iraq did had monkey models made by Poland with no more higher quality than the already existing T-55A's they had. It is a self evident propaganda cycle jerk....anyway, those models are most probably different from the M1A2Sep2 versions but it makes absolutley no difference because not a single M1A2Sep2 be it Saudi M1A2S or american M1A2 SEP2 never recieved any armor upgrades to their side turret protection, both are absolutley equal.

    It is geting really funny when Abrams fanboys like Damian90 mention Saudi M1A2 having decreased armor when speaking about those two Konkurs ATGM launches against both Saudi M1A2 and hitting side armor and destroying the first one and damaging the second one. The funny thing here is that this guy actually has not that bad of understanding about Tanks, doctrines, technology and design philosophy, but he is such a die hard fanboy that he purposely ignores,leaves out or portraits incidents to bring his agenda through. He mentioned that Saudi M1A2S Abrams do not have the american HA(Heavy Armor) Package which is the Depleted Uranium which are two big armor plates placed only in the front turret next to the gun left and right, no other place for DU armor on that tank, he knows it and still portraits it as the main reason why a Konkurs could penetrate the side armor of a Saudi M1A2 S Abrams and destroy it entirely.

    The Saudi M1A2S probably do have decreased armor values but certainly not the side armor and even if you could double the side protection of the turret and hull the Konkurs and even weaker Fagot would still destroy the tank when hitting exact same way. The only tanks that could survive such a blow to the side turret armor are tanks that have APS or ERA or both against a Monobloc shaped charge like common old Konkurs.

    Americans are incredibly ignorant, stubborn and arrogant, which is why they consistently refuse to consider that air superiority was of tremendous importance in their hollow victory over Iraq and that a military victory over a country that was under crippling sanctions for years on end really is nothing to be proud of. Iraq also had a terrible war with Iran just 2 years earlier.

    Damian is usually very well informed and usually presents the facts on various tanks, their differing design philosophies, doctrine, armour and deployment history, and so I don’t know why he would knowingly try to distort or downplay facts on the M1A2 in Saudi service. On another forum that I visited, Damian rebuffed an American poster that tried to argue that the development of the T-90 was a direct consequence of the poor showing of various monkey models like the T-72 in the first gulf war. Damian pointed out that the development of the T-90 started in the 80s and had nothing to do with the performance of monkey model T-72s.  He also disputed the notion that Russian tanks are less well armoured because of their light weight and argued that internal volume determines armour effectiveness.

    What I find most puzzling about Damian is his stubborn defence of gas turbine engines in tanks, despite the fact that a gas turbine engine [as seen in the Abrams] is a logistical nightmare and simply cannot be justified when there is a more efficient alternative available.


    Werewolf wrote:Yes, it is dangerous but there are solutions to decrease the risk of being spotted or hit by decreasing the missile needs to reach its speed, making the ATGM launching plattform suitable to be fired from a prone position or capability to be fired remotley without being directly in physical contact of the ATGM launching plattform, this avoids direct thermal signature exposing of yourself and giving the enemy a source where to fire, along with Laser Beam Riding that provides high jamming resitance, high velocity due lack of wire guidance and a good guidance system that leaves a low chance of being alerted to the target.

    I see missile speed as absolutely crucial here – as an alternative to expensive CCD/IIR seekers. This might be an insane notion, but do you think it would be possible to integrate a light-weight scramjet onto existing ATGMs without compromising the size and potency of the warhead and adding weight? Would a scramjet be less expensive than using CCD/IIR seekers?  The Russians have already proven their credentials here with the Brahmos cruise missile. The Brahmos missile has a speed of mach 3 which is 1020.870m/s. It would reach 2.5 km in just over 2 seconds and reach 5500 km in just 5 seconds. I won’t even talk about the Brahmos 2 missile which is slated to have a speed of mach 7, which is 2382.030m/s.

    Werewolf wrote:
    Usually in the figger of a Tow2/Metis figure but with range of Kornet-E/D, but you would have to change the entire warhead/seeker section to accomodate the needs. The difference in Shaped charge warhead and the EFP warhead is that relative low amount of explosive that can surround the EFP can be present that leaves little space behind the EFP for the grenade to be fired into the hole which would be punched through by the EFP's.

    To illustrate what i mean by the difference and little space with EFP configuration (Bill2) in the warhead with the solution for after armor effects in form of a Bunkerfaust princip it would need still a larger warhead section.

    That is the concept of a Bill2 an Top attack EFP weapon.

    That would be absolutely incredible. For an ATGM to have the portability of a Metis-M and the power and range of the Kornet-D is almost inconceivable.  If I was the defence minister of a country that Russia was friendly with, I would push for a joint program to develop a new top attack ATGM that is light, portable, and powerful with a long range… and possibly one with a scramjet. It would be virtually fire and forget if it had a scramjet.


    Werewolf wrote:The middle part is propolusion the two bodies left and right are both EFP's directed downwards. The warhead itself leaves little room above to accomodate another warhead construction to propell a small charge of explosive through the same whole the EFP creates. That leaves only one possiblity to strap a grenade launching tube right behind both EFP charges, timed in exact manner to "fire" the grenade through the roof punched holes by the time the remains of the warhead reach the space right above the holes. The time difference at what speed the missile is traveling should be very low so the explosion from the EFP's will not effect the trajectory or the position of the grenade launching devices in the warhead and leave them capable enough to fire the projectile into the tank. The Bill2 is a relative elegant way of a top attack approach with feasible costs/effeciency.


    This looks very promising. Why haven’t more countries embarked on building ATGMs like this? If it isn’t cost, then why has Russia not embarked on building an ATGM with an EFP? Dealing with time considerations for EFP warheads shouldn’t be too difficult.


    Werewolf wrote:Very low discipline and brainwashing to believe they are liberators, they are usually very trigger happy and just do not give a shit about the weapons they have, they just want to shoot. Just like the Apache WSO said to the Operator for the permission of engagement of the camera team "Come on, let us shoot!"

    It was just bizarre that no high ranking officer directed the troops to stop using failed tactics and firepower. It was obvious that what they were doing wasn’t working and so they should have asked themselves why instead of stubbornly just moving up to more and more powerful weapon types and platforms.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 277
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:39 pm

    Garry B wrote:

    Actually it would be rather more effective if it penetrated the ammo store and detonated all the ammo at once.

    AFAIK Vikhr and Ataka and Krisantema and Shturm all have proximity fuses in their anti aircraft versions.

    That makes sense. Even if the crew is not killed, the destruction of the rounds would take the tank out of the fight and that is the ultimate goal.

    Garry B wrote:

    extra range is not a bad thing as such... the Metis-M1 uses lighter electronics and newer rocket fuel that burns longer to increase range from 1.5km to 2km, but they did that within the size and weight constraints of the existing system.... and without making it more expensive.

    Improvements in laser technology might mean laser beam riding might be an option for the smaller system... it just depends on the receiver technology and equipment needed in the missile.

    An increase in range without increasing weight is always on the cards. I'm certain that KBP could integrate the Kornet-D's guidance system on the Metis-M without increasing size and weight.

    Garry B wrote:The turret of the Abrams is huge and its rear is filled with live ammo. Tank design 101 states that the front 60 degrees of armour should stop the enemies main AT weapons but there are always weak spots where even that is not possible. From 4km away you can aim at the side of any tank and be pretty sure if there is no APS you will get a kill... and that is any tank including armata.

    This actually came as a shock to me. I just pressumed that the upper turret and the back were the only weak spots on the tank.

    Garry B wrote:But logically that Konkurs was not Russian Army so it would also be a reduced perforamnce monkey model... Razz

    I don't expect the Americans to take this into consideration. To admit that a Russian system can defeat one of their most cherished platforms would be just too painful to their incredibly large ego.

    Garry B wrote:
    If we are talking about the new model Kornet then keeping the launcher pointed at the target is no real hardship when the target could be 8.5km away and have no idea it is under attack.

    BTW manual guidance seems OK for TOW and HOT and Milan... what has changed?

    It's certainly an improvement that will increase accuracy, reduce human error and increase the safety of operators. Fire and forget ATGMs only have an advantage within 2.5 km and that's if you are able to get a lock on the target, like you mentioned. Do you think it would be possible to use a light weight scramjet on an ATGM like the Kornet or Metis-M in the near future?

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:52 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Yeah, an understanding of context and circumstances is important. Context that admittedly didn’t even occur to me.  I knew that the side turret of a tank was weaker than its frontal armour, but I had no idea that it was that weak, which is where the Konkurs hit the M1A2. I'm finding it difficult to process the assertion that a WW2 hand held grenade can penetrate the turret side of a modern tank. This is kind of disappointing.

    The side armor of turrets, depending on origin and therefore their design philosophy, are usually based on the 30+-° of the frontal projection which represent the "safe" maneuvering angles in tank engagements, within this "safe" maneuvering angles the tank provides sufficient protection from frontal engagement against other tanks. That is a tank warfare and design philosphy decades old. The side armor is only thick enough to further enhance its capability against relative flat trajectory of incoming rounds from this 30°+- from the front. The armor itself on most tanks is very weak when looking at it from 90° similiar to the engagement and destruction of the first Abrams with the iranian Konkurs. It came in a very flat trajectory and hit the tank where the armor is less than 150-300mm RHAe (with its already slopped angle) from that angle and if you would use RPG-43 with its 75mm penetration or better a RKG-3 with 220mm RHAe you could penetrate it when using 90°, but of course it is rather unrealistic due the armor slope and such grenades are used against roof armor, easier to throw it on the huge turret.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Americans are incredibly ignorant, stubborn and arrogant, which is why they consistently refuse to consider that air superiority was of tremendous importance in their hollow victory over Iraq and that a military victory over a country that was under crippling sanctions for years on end really is nothing to be proud of. Iraq also had a terrible war with Iran just 2 years earlier.

    Old method of war propaganda. First ridicule the enemies army to boast your soldiers moral to fight, to let them believe the enemy has only junk and after the enemy was defeated boast the enemies war strategy, capabilities and technologies to "Wunderwaffen" and "best Air Defense System" like US boasted Iraqis Air Defense System to the "world's best" to make them look even better, just like the Nazi Germany Wunderwaffen here and there bullshit, used to glorify USA since it is propagating that it won WW2 and Soviet Union would be wiped out without the mighty US.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Damian is usually very well informed and usually presents the facts on various tanks, their differing design philosophies, doctrine, armour and deployment history, and so I don’t know why he would knowingly try to distort or downplay facts on the M1A2 in Saudi service. On another forum that I visited, Damian rebuffed an American poster that tried to argue that the development of the T-90 was a direct consequence of the poor showing of various monkey models like the T-72 in the first gulf war. Damian pointed out that the development of the T-90 started in the 80s and had nothing to do with the performance of monkey model T-72s.  He also disputed the notion that Russian tanks are less well armoured because of their light weight and argued that internal volume determines armour effectiveness.

    What I find most puzzling about Damian is his stubborn defence of gas turbine engines in tanks, despite the fact that a gas turbine engine [as seen in the Abrams] is a logistical nightmare and simply cannot be justified when there is a more efficient alternative available.

    I do not dispute that, he is usually very well read on that matter, however when someone critizes or puts information like the destroyed Abrams in Iraq and Yemen, he starts distorting the truth to protect his favorite tank against his better knowledge, meaning he lies to create a perception. He unnecessary tries to defend the Abrams being downgraded, even tho no hit on the Saudi destroyed M1A2S was even hit at a place where Depleted Uranium was used. The tanks are most probably downgraded aka monkey models but for those two Saudi tanks it would not matter if it is an US Army M1A2 Sep2 or Saudi M1A2S version, they obviously lack crew training and most other tanks that do not have ERA or APS would be penetrated aswell, question is only would there be the same effect or did the ATGM operator knew where to hit to cause a cook off and not just damage tank or kill one or two occupants. During Iraq war insurgents learned very quickly of the weak points of the Abrams tank and used those with weak old PG-7 warheads to penetrate tanks flanks which resulted in US buying patents which is alledgley patents from NII Stali Kontakt-1, at least what BitnikGr mentioned, to develope TUSK.

    Anyway, that is the only problem i have with Damian he isn't honest with himself and people can see through it, since he is one of the polish guys that see the west more modern and precious due the anti slavic propaganda in his country i see that to be blamed for his and many poles attitudes and bias towards russia/russians or anything linked to it.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    I see missile speed as absolutely crucial here – as an alternative to expensive CCD/IIR seekers. This might be an insane notion, but do you think it would be possible to integrate a light-weight scramjet onto existing ATGMs without compromising the size and potency of the warhead and adding weight? Would a scramjet be less expensive than using CCD/IIR seekers?  The Russians have already proven their credentials here with the Brahmos cruise missile. The Brahmos missile has a speed of mach 3 which is 1020.870m/s. It would reach 2.5 km in just over 2 seconds and reach 5500 km in just 5 seconds. I won’t even talk about the Brahmos 2 missile which is slated to have a speed of mach 7, which is 2382.030m/s.

    Well, i am not the most educated person about scram-jet technology but the issue here is that shaped charges need a very specified probe (distance between shaped charge itself and to the armor to form an optimal penetrator). You use an ATGM which already has a warhead connected to a guidance section which is in your case CCD/IIR seeker which usually occupies almost a 3rd of the missile maybe just a 4th, if you would want to add a scram-jet to your missile it would mean that the missile needs to be made longer to accomodate the scram-jet, fuel, fuel-lines, electronic etc infront of the warhead meaning, your shaped charge gets further away from the armor when it detonates, that is already something you could consider as a design flaw. The other point is the added mass infront of the shaped charge can further have an effect on the forming penetrator by reducing its penetrative capability. Speed is crucial i aggree but maybe not the best way to achieve better speeds and i do not think Mach 2.5-3 is even necessary and would make technology very expensive while being an overkill in capability. Why waste money on making a to potent weapon which you can have only in limited numbers and designing it with a technology like scramjet while most of the targets for ATGM's were always not tanks but infantry, light armored vehicles, fortifications and then followed by tanks. You don't need scramjet technology for non of those targets and IIR seeker will be useless in many situations, especially when necessary to fight infantry with over expensive and less performing ATGM like a shaped charged Javelin that was very often used against isolated infantry, taking minutes to lockon via SACLOS and leaving launching soldier exposed to enemy LOS and therefore open to counter fire.

    The other issue with Top attack weapons is dealt with Armata plattform, T-14/15 and even Kurganetz have vertical launched decoys (smoke screen). IIR seeker need an IR target source otherwise they are less useful than unguided SPG recoiless rifles.

    The technology against top attack weapons is very simple and used by radar detecting the incoming threat from extended range and deploying a smoke screen of the uper hemisphere above the tank camoflauging it and its IR spectrum to the IIR seeker of such missiles, helps to defend against Helicopters, Javelin like ATGM's and Jet launched IIR seeking missiles.



    Cyrus the great wrote:
    That would be absolutely incredible. For an ATGM to have the portability of a Metis-M and the power and range of the Kornet-D is almost inconceivable.  If I was the defence minister of a country that Russia was friendly with, I would push for a joint program to develop a new top attack ATGM that is light, portable, and powerful with a long range… and possibly one with a scramjet. It would be virtually fire and forget if it had a scramjet.

    This looks very promising. Why haven’t more countries embarked on building ATGMs like this? If it isn’t cost, then why has Russia not embarked on building an ATGM with an EFP? Dealing with time considerations for EFP warheads shouldn’t be too difficult.

    Do not know the exact reason but the doctrine for ATGM's was always to be capable to destroy any foreign MBT on its hardest protected part, aiming for weak zones is all fine, but what when the enemy takes easy, cost effecient measures to make his weak points not anymore weak? Top attack weapons in IIR guidance become useless with such easy methods like stated above, the tank and APS do not need to waste even hardkill grenades to counter ASM/ATGM weapons.
    avatar
    JohninMK

    Posts : 5163
    Points : 5226
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  JohninMK on Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:43 pm

    One of the problems the US, and the West in general, has is that they are virtually total believers in advanced technology. Almost any problem can be solved with a faster processor, a bit more memory and a team of shit hot programmers. Then add a top grade marketing team, some brilliant videos and a contribution to a few key politicians re-election funds. You then have a nice little earner as no-one up the decision tree has the knowledge or even inclination to question the 'hi-tech' religion, look it works perfectly in the video.

    A classic example is the GBU-97/BLU-108B top attack skeet munition which will have made Textron/Lockheed good money. Just look at the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg9uoI8RQKc
    Against an enemy that has not thought it through, it is indeed a devastating weapon, but as soon as, as said above, someone puts up some smoke it is blinded, reliant on luck.

    On the other hand there are countries that do not have the ability to print an infinite amount of money or have a rapacious MIC, where simple, cheap and effective are the key design attributes. When, burnt into the military ethos, is the T-34 vs Tiger/Panther/Mk4 strategy you know which way Russia is going with tanks and ATGM. Numbers!

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:58 pm

    werewolf what if you put a smoke detector in the missile and will ignore it?
    avatar
    JohninMK

    Posts : 5163
    Points : 5226
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  JohninMK on Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:01 pm

    victor1985 wrote:werewolf what if you put a smoke detector in the missile and will ignore it?
    Probably already in, if target masked, home in on last known position or even predicted position if target moving (if munition is really smart).
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:07 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:werewolf what if you put a smoke detector in the missile and will ignore it?
    Probably already in, if target masked, home in on last known position or even predicted position if target moving (if munition is really smart).

    If that is what he means by that then i think some missiles have such programming to aim for last known location even tho i do not have direct information on which missiles have or not have it.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10661
    Points : 11140
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  George1 on Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:58 am

    Beast Killer: Russia’s Kornet-EM Stands Up to M1 Abrams

    Conflicts that have recently flared up in various parts of the world showed that America’s much-trumpeted M1 Abrams tank falls easy prey to even older types of Russian antitank weapons.

    The Kornet-EM is a multi-purpose long-range antitank guided missile system. It was unveiled at the Moscow Airshow (MAKS) in August 2011. The system was also demonstrated at the Russian Arms Expo in September 2013 and May 2015.

    The missile system is designed to destroy advanced and modern tanks fitted with explosive reactive armor from 1,100mm to 1,300mm, light-armored vehicles and fortifications.

    It can also engage surface-level marine and low-speed aerial targets at ranges between 150m and 10,000m and offers high immunity against jamming.

    The twin Kornet-EM salvo firing unit mounted on the vehicle's platform carries an ammunition load of 16 pieces, including eight ready-to-fire missiles.

    The Kornet-EM is available in two configurations, which include an automatic launcher for deployment on carriers and a transportable launcher for combat operations under different environmental conditions.

    The automatic launcher is controlled by an automatic and laser beam riding guidance system. It is fitted with high resolution cameras and third generation thermal imaging sight. Each launcher module weighs 75.2kg.

    The automatic launcher can lay missiles at an azimuth angle of ±180° and elevations between —5° and +45° for ranges between 200m and 15,000m.

    It engages the targets automatically and can perform salvo firing at two targets simultaneously.

    The portable-transportable launcher of the Kornet-EM can be installed on wheeled and tracked vehicles, most recently on the Tigr armored car.

    The Kornet-EM has already won big kudos abroad. Algeria, for one, plans to buy several units.

    One of its neighbors will soon be buying Abrams tanks, which means that the Algerians already have a strong “antidote” against The Beast…

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150908/1026737762/russia-kornet-abrams-missile.html#ixzz3lBt5WYN4


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:03 pm

    I knew that the side turret of a tank was weaker than its frontal armour, but I had no idea that it was that weak, which is where the Konkurs hit the M1A2. I'm finding it difficult to process the assertion that a WW2 hand held grenade can penetrate the turret side of a modern tank. This is kind of disappointing.

    The sad fact of the matter is that tank armour is mainly the frontal 60 degree angles most of the time.

    The basic rule of thumb is that the design should have frontal armour able to stop enemy main tank gun ammo and main enemy atgms from the front 60 degrees, while the sides should stop the enemy standard IFV light cannon calibre and the rear should stop HMG fire... that was the same during WWII as it is now... the main difference is that a vehicle in WWII that had that performance was a heavy tank... no light or medium tank could hope for that sort of performance most of the time... the exception being the T-34, which was a medium to light tank that was protected frontally from the standard german anti armour systems of the time... they had to redirect 88mm anti aircraft guns to deal with them and rush the 88mm gun into service on the Tiger and then later the high velocity 75mm gun of the Panther into service to deal with T-34s.

    Also keep in mind that anti tank hand grenades had fairly large shaped charges and were basically hand thrown Bazooka charges.

    What I find most puzzling about Damian is his stubborn defence of gas turbine engines in tanks, despite the fact that a gas turbine engine [as seen in the Abrams] is a logistical nightmare and simply cannot be justified when there is a more efficient alternative available.

    Ironically gas turbines are widely used for electricity generation and are efficient for being rather compact generators. the problem with using them as engines in tanks is that they don't do torque very well and variable throttle changes are terrible for fuel consumption. A future arrangement where the gas turbine is just connected to a generator and is run at a constant efficient rate to generate electricity and the wheels are propelled by electric motors drawing charge from the generator and batteries and capacitors it will be a very simple and cheap and efficient way of propelling large vehicles.

    Such propulsion is already used on Buses and trains using diesel fuel.

    I see missile speed as absolutely crucial here – as an alternative to expensive CCD/IIR seekers. This might be an insane notion, but do you think it would be possible to integrate a light-weight scramjet onto existing ATGMs without compromising the size and potency of the warhead and adding weight? Would a scramjet be less expensive than using CCD/IIR seekers?  The Russians have already proven their credentials here with the Brahmos cruise missile. The Brahmos missile has a speed of mach 3 which is 1020.870m/s. It would reach 2.5 km in just over 2 seconds and reach 5500 km in just 5 seconds. I won’t even talk about the Brahmos 2 missile which is slated to have a speed of mach 7, which is 2382.030m/s.

    Actually it is funny you suggest this because one of the things behind the idea of the Hermes/SA-19/SOSNA-R missile systems is high speed and low flight time to target.

    There are plenty of current Russian rocket ramjet missiles... SA-6, AS-17, and various anti ship missiles that have a rocket accelerating a missile and when that rocket burns out the empty internal volume is used as a ramjet to propel the missile the rest of the way to the target. For a shoulder or launcher mounted weapon the solid rocket booster would need to be pretty substantial, though an APFSDS round fired at high speed from a 125mm tank main gun could just have a scramjet sustainer motor... of course the irony is that unlike standard APFSDS rounds where the main effective range is up to about 2-3km where it is most effective, with a scramjet accelerating the round to higher and higher speeds then extended range hits become more likely and more effective.

    With jet exhaust splayed out so a rear looking sensor to detect a laser beam can be fitted you could carry two stage rockets on UCAVs flying at 4-5,000m altitude looking for targets 10km away... the first stage solid rocket booster as used on SOSNAR could accelerate the front section of the missile to 1.5km/s and when it falls away the front section could light up a scramjet and accelerate the front section to who knows what speed... id Kornet EM can use a laser beam riding guidance to 10km there should be no reason this system oouldn't use it to 10-15km.

    Impact speed alone would be sufficient for hard armour targets.

    That would be absolutely incredible. For an ATGM to have the portability of a Metis-M and the power and range of the Kornet-D is almost inconceivable.  If I was the defence minister of a country that Russia was friendly with, I would push for a joint program to develop a new top attack ATGM that is light, portable, and powerful with a long range… and possibly one with a scramjet. It would be virtually fire and forget if it had a scramjet.

    But you would not need fire and forget capability with a scramjet... you would be talking about less than 5 seconds from launch to impact with targets 10km away.

    Equally with top attack capability there would be no need for Kornet level penetration of armour penetration. Make the plasma beam less focused and widen the penetration to make a bigger hole rather than a narrower deeper hole.

    This looks very promising. Why haven’t more countries embarked on building ATGMs like this? If it isn’t cost, then why has Russia not embarked on building an ATGM with an EFP? Dealing with time considerations for EFP warheads shouldn’t be too difficult.

    As you can imagine an explosive formed projectile is not made of hard materials, and the material formed looks round nosed like a shuttle cock as used in badminton rather than a razor nosed penetrator. Very simply HEAT warheads offer much better performance but they have to be right up against the armour they penetrate.

    EFPs can be detonated dozens of even hundreds of metres from the target and still penetrate armour... EFPs are widely used in submunitions from either bombs or rockets in the Soviet inventory.

    An increase in range without increasing weight is always on the cards. I'm certain that KBP could integrate the Kornet-D's guidance system on the Metis-M without increasing size and weight.

    the Metis-M1 got a range increase with reduced weight electronics in the missile and improved rocket propellent... it got to 2km range instead of 1.5km range of the older model. It also got rather more armour penetration with a newer warhead.

    If you demand even more range then it will be at the cost of the warhead, and I think they should keep it the way it is... unless they could manage to get top attack capability, in which case the warhead would not need to be so big and heavy...

    This actually came as a shock to me. I just pressumed that the upper turret and the back were the only weak spots on the tank.

    It is all about weight... the roof and belly are generally weakest with the sides next weakest... if you want 1,000mm armour on front sides and rear and roof then you will have the worlds first 1,000 ton tank... a real land monitor.

    I don't expect the Americans to take this into consideration. To admit that a Russian system can defeat one of their most cherished platforms would be just too painful to their incredibly large ego.

    Only for the US Stong fanboys. Most people know any piece of equipment is only as good as the person using it. A 20 million dollar Stradivarius (spelling) violin would not be so valuable in a place like the jungles of New Guinea where no one could play it properly...

    Do you think it would be possible to use a light weight scramjet on an ATGM like the Kornet or Metis-M in the near future?

    Work on scramjets is becoming more intense... it will not be too long before they start appearing in lots of different places... perhaps even large calibre rifle bullets and long range artillery rounds.

    Well, i am not the most educated person about scram-jet technology but the issue here is that shaped charges need a very specified probe (distance between shaped charge itself and to the armor to form an optimal penetrator).

    If you are going to have your missile fly at hypersonic speeds then why not just use a solid penetrator instead of a HEAT warhead?

    A modern HEAT warhead is 10kgs or more. a modern APFSDS penetrator would be half that...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    This actually came as a shock to me. I just pressumed that the upper turret and the back were the only weak spots on the tank.

    It is all about weight... the roof and belly are generally weakest with the sides next weakest... if you want 1,000mm armour on front sides and rear and roof then you will have the worlds first 1,000 ton tank... a real land monitor.

    1000mm RHAe protection from all sides? Well best tank in the world that is the easiest to kill. One Kornet-E wills till penetrate it and dare you have an ammunition cook off. Pressure will rise hundreds of times higher than on any normal tank due the massive amount of armor and the weight alone from the turret, if such a turret can even exist. Probably all friendly and enemy forces will be killed when this tank goes boom and be a 1000t heavy grenade exploding and propelling fragmentation in every direction.


    Anyway, the issue with modern kinds of armor like composite armor is that it can weight less than RHA steel and achieve the same protection, but the big negative issue here is that composite armor by itself needs more "room" it has usually air gaps of many layers with different materials of different thickness, weight and often angles within the armor itself, that means that to have a valueble tank in dimensions that are even feasible to produce let alone to support with logistics, deployment and even to drive on the battlefield limits it to some dimensions, meaning even if you had the technology or will to protect it from all sides with potent composite armor you could not create it and make it valueable for the military, it would end up like the Maus in a museum, never used and useless waste of lot of money and time for nothing but a laugh for everyone with knowledge and only die hard fanboys would drull over it and fantasies about its unpenetratable armor and being the most precious and best tank in entire time from now to infinity.

    GarryB wrote:
    Well, i am not the most educated person about scram-jet technology but the issue here is that shaped charges need a very specified probe (distance between shaped charge itself and to the armor to form an optimal penetrator).

    If you are going to have your missile fly at hypersonic speeds then why not just use a solid penetrator instead of a HEAT warhead?

    A modern HEAT warhead is 10kgs or more. a modern APFSDS penetrator would be half that...

    We discussed this already, i aggree it could be done, but i doubt it will be anywhere in the same field as HEAT weapons in money, masses to be fielded and easy to deploy.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:20 pm

    1000mm RHAe protection from all sides? Well best tank in the world that is the easiest to kill. One Kornet-E wills till penetrate it and dare you have an ammunition cook off. Pressure will rise hundreds of times higher than on any normal tank due the massive amount of armor and the weight alone from the turret, if such a turret can even exist. Probably all friendly and enemy forces will be killed when this tank goes boom and be a 1000t heavy grenade exploding and propelling fragmentation in every direction.

    And that is why they don't bother... it doesn't matter how thick you make the armour because someone will just make a missile that can penetrate it and all that weight is wasted.

    The real best solution is not heavy armour sides and rear and top... it is ERA and NERA and APS systems and smoke and jammers and good tactics... and infantry support.

    We discussed this already, i aggree it could be done, but i doubt it will be anywhere in the same field as HEAT weapons in money, masses to be fielded and easy to deploy.

    We did, but i did not bring it up.

    Now that it has been brought up and now that we see that Kornets laser beam riding guidance can work to 15km according to the brochures, then a super fast missile with a solid penetrator through its core becomes a good option...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    We discussed this already, i aggree it could be done, but i doubt it will be anywhere in the same field as HEAT weapons in money, masses to be fielded and easy to deploy.

    We did, but i did not bring it up.

    Now that it has been brought up and now that we see that Kornets laser beam riding guidance can work to 15km according to the brochures, then a super fast missile with a solid penetrator through its core becomes a good option...


    Interesting. I was  not aware that the laser beam guidance can reach as far as 15 km's, maybe that's the 'true' range of the domestic version of Kornet. Something like 13km for HEAT warheads, and 15km for HE-Frag? Shocked
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2029
    Points : 2033
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Regular on Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:04 pm

    Where would You find such distances of engagement? How easily You could ID the target and lead missile to it? Whats the distance of horizon? Sure, it's advantage, but at such distances I would rather trust radar guidance:)
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:11 pm

    Regular wrote:Where would You find such distances of engagement? How easily You could ID the target and lead missile to it? Whats the distance of horizon? Sure, it's advantage, but at such distances I would rather trust radar guidance:)

    Because optical guidance allows you to target passively, while radar doesn't. If your going to use radar, then why not just employ Zoopark-1 artillery radar, were you saying the ATGM team should be the ones that emit radar? If that's the case then the radar a 3-man team would carry/employ would be exponentially weaker than a dedicated vehicle.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:32 pm

    Regular wrote:Where would You find such distances of engagement? How easily You could ID the target and lead missile to it? Whats the distance of horizon? Sure, it's advantage, but at such distances I would rather trust radar guidance:)

    Only for sea targets or from aviation, maybe some locations in very wide and flat locations, which do exist in northern germany for example.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 277
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:16 am

    Werewolf wrote:The side armor of turrets, depending on origin and therefore their design philosophy, are usually based on the 30+-° of the frontal projection which represent the "safe" maneuvering angles in tank engagements, within this "safe" maneuvering angles the tank provides sufficient protection from frontal engagement against other tanks. That is a tank warfare and design philosphy decades old. The side armor is only thick enough to further enhance its capability against relative flat trajectory of incoming rounds from this 30°+- from the front. The armor itself on most tanks is very weak when looking at it from 90° similiar to the engagement and destruction of the first Abrams with the iranian Konkurs. It came in a very flat trajectory and hit the tank where the armor is less than 150-300mm RHAe (with its already slopped angle) from that angle and if you would use RPG-43 with its 75mm penetration or better a RKG-3 with 220mm RHAe you could penetrate it when using 90°, but of course it is rather unrealistic due the armor slope and such grenades are used against roof armor, easier to throw it on the huge turret.


    All of this has been a revelation to me.  I’ve got to buy some books on battle tanks so that I can better understand tank design philosophies, like you all have presumably done. Thank you so much for this wealth of information, Werewolf. It’s really useful, mate. Unless the Iranian backed Houthis just fired at the M1A2 tank wherever they could and got incredibly lucky, it really does seem as though Iran trained and directed them well.

    Werewolf wrote:Old method of war propaganda. First ridicule the enemies army to boast your soldiers moral to fight, to let them believe the enemy has only junk and after the enemy was defeated boast the enemies war strategy, capabilities and technologies to "Wunderwaffen" and "best Air Defense System" like US boasted Iraqis Air Defense System to the "world's best" to make them look even better, just like the Nazi Germany Wunderwaffen here and there bullshit, used to glorify USA since it is propagating that it won WW2 and Soviet Union would be wiped out without the mighty US.


    You know this is precisely what I saw in American documentaries on the first gulf war; they made it seem as though Saddam’s Iraq was a super power, furnished with superior artillery and a world class air defence system that could only have been breached with the ever incredible Apache helicopter from close range.

    I’m guilty of deriding the fighting capabilities of the Afghans by terming them goat-herders in the AK-12 thread despite the fact that people like that are hardy and resourceful, making them formidable opponents.

    Werewolf wrote:
    I do not dispute that, he is usually very well read on that matter, however when someone critizes or puts information like the destroyed Abrams in Iraq and Yemen, he starts distorting the truth to protect his favorite tank against his better knowledge, meaning he lies to create a perception. He unnecessary tries to defend the Abrams being downgraded, even tho no hit on the Saudi destroyed M1A2S was even hit at a place where Depleted Uranium was used. The tanks are most probably downgraded aka monkey models but for those two Saudi tanks it would not matter if it is an US Army M1A2 Sep2 or Saudi M1A2S version, they obviously lack crew training and most other tanks that do not have ERA or APS would be penetrated aswell, question is only would there be the same effect or did the ATGM operator knew where to hit to cause a cook off and not just damage tank or kill one or two occupants. During Iraq war insurgents learned very quickly of the weak points of the Abrams tank and used those with weak old PG-7 warheads to penetrate tanks flanks which resulted in US buying patents which is alledgley patents from NII Stali Kontakt-1, at least what BitnikGr mentioned, to develope TUSK.

    Anyway, that is the only problem i have with Damian he isn't honest with himself and people can see through it, since he is one of the polish guys that see the west more modern and precious due the anti slavic propaganda in his country i see that to be blamed for his and many poles attitudes and bias towards russia/russians or anything linked to it.

    The Abrams does seem to be Damian’s favourite tank, and he has defended it even against legitimate criticism, especially with regard to its gas guzzling gas turbine engine. If he is purposely presenting inaccurate information on the Abrams than that is terribly disappointing. The Saudis have never seemed competent and their acquisition of flashy toys has done nothing to temper this fact. They still need the Pakistanis to operate and maintain their equipment.

    It’s not surprising that the Americans acquired ERA technology from Russia, seeing as how Russia is the undisputed leader in this field. The question is will American fanboys admit it? They always accuse Russia of copying them and will dismiss evidence demonstrating that they have copied Russians in relation to a number of platforms.

    I have noticed that Damian has a superiority complex in relation to Russians; like a lot of Poles, he still views Russia in a negative light; he seems convinced that Poland is well and truly part of the ostensibly superior ‘west’ now.  I read somewhere that Poland is the most anti-Russian country on earth and that this anti-Russian stance has increased following the hysteria over Crimea and the events in eastern Ukraine.

    Aren’t Poles Slavs as well? As I understand it the Poles are cousins of the Russians and Ukrainians and Belarusians are brothers of the Russians with Kiev being the original capital of the Rus people. Countries that hate each other always seem to be those that are most closely related to one another.

    Werewolf wrote:Well, i am not the most educated person about scram-jet technology but the issue here is that shaped charges need a very specified probe (distance between shaped charge itself and to the armor to form an optimal penetrator). You use an ATGM which already has a warhead connected to a guidance section which is in your case CCD/IIR seeker which usually occupies almost a 3rd of the missile maybe just a 4th, if you would want to add a scram-jet to your missile it would mean that the missile needs to be made longer to accomodate the scram-jet, fuel, fuel-lines, electronic etc infront of the warhead meaning, your shaped charge gets further away from the armor when it detonates, that is already something you could consider as a design flaw. The other point is the added mass infront of the shaped charge can further have an effect on the forming penetrator by reducing its penetrative capability. Speed is crucial i aggree but maybe not the best way to achieve better speeds and i do not think Mach 2.5-3 is even necessary and would make technology very expensive while being an overkill in capability. Why waste money on making a to potent weapon which you can have only in limited numbers and designing it with a technology like scramjet while most of the targets for ATGM's were always not tanks but infantry, light armored vehicles, fortifications and then followed by tanks. You don't need scramjet technology for non of those targets and IIR seeker will be useless in many situations, especially when necessary to fight infantry with over expensive and less performing ATGM like a shaped charged Javelin that was very often used against isolated infantry, taking minutes to lockon via SACLOS and leaving launching soldier exposed to enemy LOS and therefore open to counter fire.

    You guys have educated me on CCD/IIR seekers, especially on just how incredibly expensive they are, and so I wanted to see if it would be cheaper and more effective to incorporate scramjets onto ATGMs instead of CCD/IIR seekers. As you pointed out it would be unnecessary, difficult, expensive and ineffectual to use them in conjunction. To forego the use of expensive electronics and rely on speed instead with an upgrade to rocket motors seems really attractive to me. This technology may not be viable now but it should be viable in 10 years when the technology matures, with the costs going down because of it. I agree that using a sophisticated and more expensive weapon on infantry and fortifications would be wasteful, and this is why I think the RPO-M Shmel-M should take the place of ATGMs currently in use; I assume that it’s cheaper than even the Metis-M. The newest RPO-M has a range of 1.7 km. That’s impressive.




    Werewolf wrote:The other issue with Top attack weapons is dealt with Armata plattform, T-14/15 and even Kurganetz have vertical launched decoys (smoke screen). IIR seeker need an IR target source otherwise they are less useful than unguided SPG recoiless rifles.


    The technology against top attack weapons is very simple and used by radar detecting the incoming threat from extended range and deploying a smoke screen of the uper hemisphere above the tank camoflauging it and its IR spectrum to the IIR seeker of such missiles, helps to defend against Helicopters, Javelin like ATGM's and Jet launched IIR seeking missiles.


    You are right about top-attack missiles… they seem far slower than conventional ones.  It’s incredible that top-attack missiles will not work against Russia’s newest IFVs and MBTs and other countries may eventually follow Russia’s footsteps here, and so I’m reconsidering top-attack missiles.



    Werewolf wrote:
    Do not know the exact reason but the doctrine for ATGM's was always to be capable to destroy any foreign MBT on its hardest protected part, aiming for weak zones is all fine, but what when the enemy takes easy, cost effecient measures to make his weak points not anymore weak? Top attack weapons in IIR guidance become useless with such easy methods like stated above, the tank and APS do not need to waste even hardkill grenades to counter ASM/ATGM weapons.

    This makes a lot of sense. Relying on top-attack alone is dangerous.  You need to be able to threaten armour from all angles not just on the top. It seems that versatility would be lost to using just top-attack missiles and IIR seekers may take a long time to acquire a lock. You mentioned that it sometimes takes minutes for the Javelin to lock onto a target… would it be safe to assume that this is the same case for the Spike missile? I can't find anything on lock on time for either the Javelin or Spike Missile, but assuming that the Spike missile is superior to the Javelin, would a 20 second lock on time be too optimistic?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1684
    Points : 1724
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:46 am

    Off Topic : apologies for off topic but I had to Smile
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    I have noticed that Damian has a superiority complex in relation to Russians; like a lot of Poles, he still views Russia in a negative light; he seems convinced that Poland is well and truly part of the ostensibly superior ‘west’ now.  I read somewhere that Poland is the most anti-Russian country on earth and that this anti-Russian stance has increased following the hysteria over Crimea and the events in eastern Ukraine.

    Unfortunately this is true Sad there are lots of idiots and traitors of Slavic cause. pindos/Zionist propaganda is making most of Poles live in Matrix of lies and anti-Russian fact distortions. The parties which are for good Polish-Russian relations are accused to be paid agents of Putin. Divide and impera nothing changed... but not all Poles are zombies programmed by Hollywood cr@p. Mayne not majority after quarter of century but still sizable number of Poles are for good relations. And a part for Panslavism.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Aren’t Poles Slavs as well? As I understand it the Poles are cousins of the Russians and Ukrainians and Belarusians are brothers of the Russians with Kiev being the original capital of the Rus people. Countries that hate each other always seem to be those that are most closely related to one another.

    Yes we are. You know the best example of pindos/Zionist propaganda is Ukraine where ethnic Russians called now Ukrainians are taught to hate Russia Sad

    PS you forgot about Serbs :-P

    But pindostan will fall we have to start work with society to un-zombify them.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 277
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:00 am

    Garry B wrote:
    The sad fact of the matter is that tank armour is mainly the frontal 60 degree angles most of the time.

    The basic rule of thumb is that the design should have frontal armour able to stop enemy main tank gun ammo and main enemy atgms from the front 60 degrees, while the sides should stop the enemy standard IFV light cannon calibre and the rear should stop HMG fire... that was the same during WWII as it is now... the main difference is that a vehicle in WWII that had that performance was a heavy tank... no light or medium tank could hope for that sort of performance most of the time... the exception being the T-34, which was a medium to light tank that was protected frontally from the standard german anti armour systems of the time... they had to redirect 88mm anti aircraft guns to deal with them and rush the 88mm gun into service on the Tiger and then later the high velocity 75mm gun of the Panther into service to deal with T-34s.

    Also keep in mind that anti tank hand grenades had fairly large shaped charges and were basically hand thrown Bazooka charges.

    This is very enlightening. Thank you, Garry. I guess I was being melodramatic when I expressed disappointment in modern MBT armour; most tanks are hit on the frontal section and so it’s understandable that this would be a place of priority in terms of armour placement. Like Werewolf said, having a tank that is impervious to all forms of attacks on all sides would make it terribly heavy and difficult to deploy and defend against cost-effective weapon systems that will render it useless on the battlefield.
    Garry B wrote:

    Ironically gas turbines are widely used for electricity generation and are efficient for being rather compact generators. the problem with using them as engines in tanks is that they don't do torque very well and variable throttle changes are terrible for fuel consumption. A future arrangement where the gas turbine is just connected to a generator and is run at a constant efficient rate to generate electricity and the wheels are propelled by electric motors drawing charge from the generator and batteries and capacitors it will be a very simple and cheap and efficient way of propelling large vehicles.

    Such propulsion is already used on Buses and trains using diesel fuel.

    I understand that gas turbine engines are light and compact, but they are currently just gas guzzlers. Gas turbine engines cannot be justified logistically at this point in time. They are inferior in this regard, unless they undergo the modification that you spoke off. It takes something like 10 gallons to just start the engine of the Abrams.
    Garry B wrote:

    Actually it is funny you suggest this because one of the things behind the idea of the Hermes/SA-19/SOSNA-R missile systems is high speed and low flight time to target.

    There are plenty of current Russian rocket ramjet missiles... SA-6, AS-17, and various anti ship missiles that have a rocket accelerating a missile and when that rocket burns out the empty internal volume is used as a ramjet to propel the missile the rest of the way to the target. For a shoulder or launcher mounted weapon the solid rocket booster would need to be pretty substantial, though an APFSDS round fired at high speed from a 125mm tank main gun could just have a scramjet sustainer motor... of course the irony is that unlike standard APFSDS rounds where the main effective range is up to about 2-3km where it is most effective, with a scramjet accelerating the round to higher and higher speeds then extended range hits become more likely and more effective.

    With jet exhaust splayed out so a rear looking sensor to detect a laser beam can be fitted you could carry two stage rockets on UCAVs flying at 4-5,000m altitude looking for targets 10km away... the first stage solid rocket booster as used on SOSNAR could accelerate the front section of the missile to 1.5km/s and when it falls away the front section could light up a scramjet and accelerate the front section to who knows what speed... id Kornet EM can use a laser beam riding guidance to 10km there should be no reason this system oouldn't use it to 10-15km.

    Impact speed alone would be sufficient for hard armour targets.

    This is why I love the Hermes missile. Its incredible speed is unmatched and adds a new capability onto the battlefield. The prospect of Russia developing and deploying scramjet assisted APFSDs excites me. To have weapons that have longer range and power on a platform like the T-14 Armata would be devastating on the enemy in any battlefield. The Russians already have long range GLATGMs like Sokol-1 but scramjets would add a whole new dimension and capability that nobody else has.

    A Kornet-D with a scramjet would just be beyond belief. It would send shivers done the spines of tankers worldwide. A system that is almost impossible to jam -- and with such an increase in speed, it would be virtually impossible to confront. This would be a fire and forget missile without expensive CCD/IIR seekers that at times struggle to acquire a lock.

    Garry B wrote:

    But you would not need fire and forget capability with a scramjet... you would be talking about less than 5 seconds from launch to impact with targets 10km away.

    Equally with top attack capability there would be no need for Kornet level penetration of armour penetration. Make the plasma beam less focused and widen the penetration to make a bigger hole rather than a narrower deeper hole.

    Precisely. That’s what I’m arguing, mate. The incredible speed of a scramjet assisted missile would achieve the fire and forget function. It would achieve it differently, but achieve it nonetheless.

    Garry B wrote:
    As you can imagine an explosive formed projectile is not made of hard materials, and the material formed looks round nosed like a shuttle cock as used in badminton rather than a razor nosed penetrator. Very simply HEAT warheads offer much better performance but they have to be right up against the armour they penetrate.

    EFPs can be detonated dozens of even hundreds of metres from the target and still penetrate armour... EFPs are widely used in submunitions from either bombs or rockets in the Soviet inventory.

    This is interesting. This is probably why countries have not gone down the EFP route in their ATGMs. Like all things it has advantages as well as disadvantages, but conventional warheads seem to be more versatile.

    Garry B wrote:


    the Metis-M1 got a range increase with reduced weight electronics in the missile and improved rocket propellent... it got to 2km range instead of 1.5km range of the older model. It also got rather more armour penetration with a newer warhead.

    If you demand even more range then it will be at the cost of the warhead, and I think they should keep it the way it is... unless they could manage to get top attack capability, in which case the warhead would not need to be so big and heavy...


    I think you’re right. Until a light and fuel efficient scramjet is incorporated onto a Metis-M, it would be best to maintain it as it is. If they do manage to develop a light and fuel efficient scramjet with a range out to 5.5 km like the 9M133 Kornet, a slight increase of 2 kg would be acceptable.

    Garry B wrote:
    It is all about weight... the roof and belly are generally weakest with the sides next weakest... if you want 1,000mm armour on front sides and rear and roof then you will have the worlds first 1,000 ton tank... a real land monitor.

    I see your point. This is why I like Russian tanks; they achieve comparable [if not superior] armour protection compared to ‘western’ tanks while being far lighter which makes them easier to deploy.

    Garry B wrote:
    Only for the US Stong fanboys. Most people know any piece of equipment is only as good as the person using it. A 20 million dollar Stradivarius (spelling) violin would not be so valuable in a place like the jungles of New Guinea where no one could play it properly...

    That’s a very good analogy. Now that we have video evidence of an M1A2 Abrams being destroyed by a last generation Russian derived ATGM, the Americans will no longer be able to subject the rest of us to their nauseating chest-thumping and arrogance. I read that the United States downplayed how many Abrams were destroyed during the recent Iraq war.

    Garry B wrote:
    Work on scramjets is becoming more intense... it will not be too long before they start appearing in lots of different places... perhaps even large calibre rifle bullets and long range artillery rounds.


    And this has got me excited like a child. The possible applications are almost endless. I am particularly excited about the possibilities in the ATGM field.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 277
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:37 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Unfortunately this is true  there are lots of idiots and traitors of Slavic cause. pindos/Zionist propaganda is making most of Poles live in Matrix of lies and anti-Russian fact distortions. The parties which are for good Polish-Russian relations are accused to be paid agents of Putin. Divide and impera nothing changed... but not all Poles are zombies programmed by Hollywood cr@p. Mayne not majority after quarter of century but still sizable number of Poles are for good relations. And a part for Panslavism.

    Slavic countries like the Czech Republic and Poland have joined NATO and I doubt they will be swayed by any notion of pan-Slavic identity. What's happening in Ukraine is a derivative of 'western' sabotage -- another example of the many colour revolutions that have taken place in areas like Georgia, Ukraine and Serbia among others.

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    Yes we are. You know the best example of pindos/Zionist propaganda is Ukraine where ethnic Russians called now Ukrainians are taught to hate Russia  

    PS you forgot about Serbs :-P

    But pindostan will fall we have to start work with society to un-zombify them.

    It's mind-blogging how they think they can twist the facts and present Russia as the aggressor despite clear evidence of western involvement in the Ukraine crisis - involvement that sparked this whole thing in the first place.

    There are a lot of Slavic countries --too many to list. I have never heard of Pindos in reference to Zionists. Is that a Polish word for Zionists?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:03 pm

    Interesting. I was  not aware that the laser beam guidance can reach as far as 15 km's, maybe that's the 'true' range of the domestic version of Kornet. Something like 13km for HEAT warheads, and 15km for HE-Frag?

    It is my understanding that this is the limit for the aiming system... the actual range limits of 10km for HE Frag and 8.5km for HEAT warheads is missile based limits.

    Where would You find such distances of engagement? How easily You could ID the target and lead missile to it? Whats the distance of horizon? Sure, it's advantage, but at such distances I would rather trust radar guidance:)

    I would suggest lots of places... from half way up the side of a mountain you can see great distances, and moving enemy forces on a road stand out... desert or flat plain... in lots of natural environments.

    Just as importantly from a UCAV flying a 5km altitude targets 10km away should be easily detectable on open ground.

    Unless the Iranian backed Houthis just fired at the M1A2 tank wherever they could and got incredibly lucky, it really does seem as though Iran trained and directed them well.

    Just the way the armour on any tank is arranged it makes sense to attack from the sides or rear.

    The rear turret of the Abrams is a known location for stored ammo which makes it a good place to aim.

    I’m guilty of deriding the fighting capabilities of the Afghans by terming them goat-herders in the AK-12 thread despite the fact that people like that are hardy and resourceful, making them formidable opponents.

    Those goat herders have defeated the greatest military powers of the modern age... REPEATEDLY.

    this is why I think the RPO-M Shmel-M should take the place of ATGMs currently in use; I assume that it’s cheaper than even the Metis-M. The newest RPO-M has a range of 1.7 km. That’s impressive.

    Note it has a ballistic range of 1.7km... you probably wouldn't use it against a target at more than 700m or so unless it was a huge open area.

    Hitting a particular room in a building out to 1.5-2km and Metis-M1 is ideal. Flattening the house that is 500m away that enemy fire seems to be coming from and then an RPO-M or RPG-29 with a thermobaric warhead would be ideal.

    You are right about top-attack missiles… they seem far slower than conventional ones. It’s incredible that top-attack missiles will not work against Russia’s newest IFVs and MBTs and other countries may eventually follow Russia’s footsteps here, and so I’m reconsidering top-attack missiles.

    There is nothing wrong with the theory of top attack weapons... it is certainly a weak point on modern heavy armour. The challenge is to do it cheaply. The whole point of making it cheap is to make it plentiful... if you only have a few hundred in your army then it wont be as effective as if you have tens of thousands of systems that are cheap to use.

    And this has got me excited like a child. The possible applications are almost endless. I am particularly excited about the possibilities in the ATGM field.

    Actually the idea of a scramjet that could propel an aircraft from on an airfield up to orbital speeds and into space is what excites me...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:32 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    I’m guilty of deriding the fighting capabilities of the Afghans by terming them goat-herders in the AK-12 thread despite the fact that people like that are hardy and resourceful, making them formidable opponents.

    And you do them unjust in respect to their fighting capabilities. Asymmetric warfare was only invented to counter the inparrity in firepower,menpower, logistics, money etc and to achieve maximal firepower with attacking only key points and with many ambushes. It is the only tactic that works against armies and not for a single brief time in history afghanish insurgents/terrorists have ever been beaten. With asymmetrical warfare, the right and good balanced personal and doctrine among very few numbered people even local civilians could strike hard on real militaries, it isn't that hard. What is hard is to sustain this level over longer period of time like Afghans did over centuries of rivaling against various empires, that is something you can't take away from them and i kind of admire their fighting spirit.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    The Abrams does seem to be Damian’s favourite tank, and he has defended it even against legitimate criticism, especially with regard to its gas guzzling gas turbine engine. If he is purposely presenting inaccurate information on the Abrams than that is terribly disappointing. The Saudis have never seemed competent and their acquisition of flashy toys has done nothing to temper this fact. They still need the Pakistanis to operate and maintain their equipment.

    Well everyone has their bias and we are usually not so eager to admit that i am not unbiased myself but i think i can aggree on criticism where it belongs and if it is plausible and not this Arm eating garbage, seriously if i ever have to hear that again in a real life conversation i will probably pound the guy and his arm eating autoloader mumbling with one of Tom Clancy's russohpbic crap books.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    It’s not surprising that the Americans acquired ERA technology from Russia, seeing as how Russia is the undisputed leader in this field. The question is will American fanboys admit it? They always accuse Russia of copying them and will dismiss evidence demonstrating that they have copied Russians in relation to a number of platforms.

    As to this day there is nothing in russian tanks that copies or follows any western "technologies" or philosophies in tank procurement/technologies. Actually it is the exact opposite, they started to use smoothbore guns after the russians, meaning they copied their philosophy despite accusing initially smoothbore guns as "inaccurate", they then followed using APFSDS rounds which the russians have invented, later they started using after the russians composite armor, later ERA and today they are going with GLATGM and APS systems. The russians were also the first to camofluage their tanks with Nakidka's to lower IR and RCS spectrum to sustain the old and very dominant russian war philosphy for ground forces and army aviation of "longer arm" who strikes first, wins first.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    I have noticed that Damian has a superiority complex in relation to Russians; like a lot of Poles, he still views Russia in a negative light; he seems convinced that Poland is well and truly part of the ostensibly superior ‘west’ now.  I read somewhere that Poland is the most anti-Russian country on earth and that this anti-Russian stance has increased following the hysteria over Crimea and the events in eastern Ukraine.

    Aren’t Poles Slavs as well? As I understand it the Poles are cousins of the Russians and Ukrainians and Belarusians are brothers of the Russians with Kiev being the original capital of the Rus people. Countries that hate each other always seem to be those that are most closely related to one another.

    Yes, to many poles are getting brainwashed with anti-russian and anti slavic propaganda despite being a slavic population and which can be seen from history, their military traditions, style of weapons of century long documented history, culture itself, music, clothing, architecture of the past centuries they are through and through slavic and you couldn't figure out a pole and a russian centuries ago and today you can only do it as a non slavic person by hearing either polish slurs or russian slurs to differ one from another. The old tactic of divide et impera is still used to devide us slavs from each other, but fortunatley there is an annual festival of "vikings" were poles, russians, (mainly slavics) but also germans, scandinavian people met to live for a few days the lifestyle of our ancestors, to have fun at duels and wargames in old and very distinguish armors of our slavic warriors. The thing i find really remarble about this festival is that the people there are understanding that they are brothers and poles and russians and other slavs are knowing and seeing it that way, something i do miss in normal life. Some day i will go there, like such stuff and sooner or later want to buy an authentic functioning slavic fashioned armor, but mainly as a mannequin outfit for my flat. Very Happy




    Cyrus the great wrote:
    You guys have educated me on CCD/IIR seekers, especially on just how incredibly expensive they are, and so I wanted to see if it would be cheaper and more effective to incorporate scramjets onto ATGMs instead of CCD/IIR seekers. As you pointed out it would be unnecessary, difficult, expensive and ineffectual to use them in conjunction. To forego the use of expensive electronics and rely on speed instead with an upgrade to rocket motors seems really attractive to me. This technology may not be viable now but it should be viable in 10 years when the technology matures, with the costs going down because of it. I agree that using a sophisticated and more expensive weapon on infantry and fortifications would be wasteful, and this is why I think the RPO-M Shmel-M should take the place of ATGMs currently in use; I assume that it’s cheaper than even the Metis-M. The newest RPO-M has a range of 1.7 km. That’s impressive.

    The problem with such predictions of when certain weapons get cheaper to be fielded in large numbers so we can see them appear across the world, is rather very short sighted. I've seen enough predictions from very educated people like Garry but from my perception it tends to be 5-10 years longer than the usual 10 years predictions. Why? The issue is usual with many things just like we can see at this current modernisation point, the government asks for new plattforms and weapons, they need few years to research and develope them, then the government realizes they are to expensive as right now and then remembers they have certain weapons already in inventory but in low numbers and plop, they then going the money/bargain game and are procuring a huge load of the older generation but very potent ATGM's and are trying to weight out untill the company either achieves to procure them for cheaper unit price or untill their hardlining on the cost softens.

    We saw that with Kornet, a very rare weapon 10 years back today we see it roasting tanks in many countries and mass fielded for military with next modernisation upgrades already in procurement. We saw that with Armata now the government tries to soften their cost per unit by trying to get T-90A/AM and T-72B3. Those predictions of when weapons start going in mass production due cheaper cost of technology or just the unit price due whatever reasons, is very well visible at ammunition, since ammunition is not a weapon per se, but just a type of projectile and even ATGM's are seen as that and even tho russia has ZUBR-10 since 1998 it still uses ZUBR-8 30mm APS rounds, while due the new plattforms they are jumping already next to ZUBR-11 APFSDS rounds. Hermes-A is the same thing, it is in field tests since 2014 and the government asked for getting the Vikhr production back up again and in 2019/2020 i expect that we can se Hermes-A more or less at the brink of replacing the Vikhr and Vikhr will remain for the same purpose Shturm remains despite having Ataka-V/VM missiles, as a cheaper version for lower value targets on the battlefield.


    Cyrus the great wrote:
    You are right about top-attack missiles… they seem far slower than conventional ones.  It’s incredible that top-attack missiles will not work against Russia’s newest IFVs and MBTs and other countries may eventually follow Russia’s footsteps here, and so I’m reconsidering top-attack missiles.

    Well one problem remains, the tank needs to stop moving to stay in his cloud of smoke and that is where little algorithm for the missile guidance, when it losses its source, that it suistains its last information input and point of impact, to at least have some chances of hitting its target. Similiar can be used on Laser Beam Riding missiles since it will not matter if the target is camoflauging itself in a screen of IR isolating smoke or not, by the time the missile loses its guidance to the helicopter LBR laser it will already have enough speed to just impact on the tank that is just a 10-15 meters behind the cloud.


    Cyrus the great wrote:
    This makes a lot of sense. Relying on top-attack alone is dangerous.  You need to be able to threaten armour from all angles not just on the top. It seems that versatility would be lost to using just top-attack missiles and IIR seekers may take a long time to acquire a lock. You mentioned that it sometimes takes minutes for the Javelin to lock onto a target… would it be safe to assume that this is the same case for the Spike missile? I can't find anything on lock on time for either the Javelin or Spike Missile, but assuming that the Spike missile is superior to the Javelin, would a 20 second lock on time be too optimistic?

    A point of doctrine is also what in case of your enemy deploying succesfully blitzkrieg tactics and preventing your ATGM teams to have even the chances to flank enemy ground forces like tanks to penetrate weaker armored sides, due their fast pace of movement into your territory which is forcing you to retreat from one echolon to another?

    I've mentioned it because Mindstorm did a good post on Javelin in T-90A Thread.

    The time to achieve a lockon, isn't some fixed time you can count down, it is the circumstances and average environmental temperature of obscurent that can prevent a lockon due the poor quality of the CLU unit seeker of the Javelin ATGM complex. This means the operator has to make input through the CLU's options to overcome the seekers incapability to achieve an disting IR signature of the target ie. the operator manually has to lockon a target, the CLU then process it and safes a memory of the targets IR spectrum to have the capability to guide the missile to some location. The time the Javelin needs against unidentifiable targets IR spectrum can vary from the operators skill and experience with this ATGM complex and the environmental weather dificulties which can amplify the operators input to achieve a lockon.

    To have more detailed explanation about Javelin read Mindstorms post about Javelin... someone has to link it here, i really have no skill of searching specific comments on this forum via google/yandex and the search function on this forum is just simply useless. If someone would be so kind to post the link to the comment and explanation about Javelin one of Mindstorms posts how it works, if someone knows what i mean?





    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Unfortunately this is true Sad there are lots of idiots and traitors of Slavic cause. pindos/Zionist propaganda is making most of Poles live in Matrix of lies and anti-Russian fact distortions. The parties which are for good Polish-Russian relations are accused to be paid agents of Putin. Divide and impera nothing changed... but not all Poles are zombies programmed by Hollywood cr@p. Mayne not majority after quarter of century but still sizable number of Poles are for good relations. And a part for Panslavism.

    We need to care more about panslavism, not about uniting all countries to one, but uniting people and countering the anti slavic/russian propaganda, if we are weak they will conquer us if we are strong they will be defeated for the rest of all time.

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Yes we are. You know the best example of pindos/Zionist propaganda is Ukraine where ethnic Russians called now Ukrainians are taught to hate Russia Sad

    PS you forgot about Serbs :-P

    Exactly my words.

    But pindostan will fall we have to start work with society to un-zombify them.[/quote]
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:55 pm

    This is very enlightening. Thank you, Garry. I guess I was being melodramatic when I expressed disappointment in modern MBT armour; most tanks are hit on the frontal section and so it’s understandable that this would be a place of priority in terms of armour placement.

    It can come as a shock to find something isn't what you always thought it was...

    For instance Abrams is perfect and T-72 is junk.

    The definition of junk is a tank that burns and kills it crew when penetrated and for a while it seemed that was the T-72 and not the Abrams.

    The facts of the matter are the T-72 with ammo in the turret bustle is safer than ammo in the turret rear even if the Abrams has better frontal armour on most models they can both burn...

    Like Werewolf said, having a tank that is impervious to all forms of attacks on all sides would make it terribly heavy and difficult to deploy and defend against cost-effective weapon systems that will render it useless on the battlefield.

    But technology like Shtora, ARENA, Nakidka, and Kaktus can greatly improve protection without adding enormous amounts of weight...

    I understand that gas turbine engines are light and compact, but they are currently just gas guzzlers. Gas turbine engines cannot be justified logistically at this point in time. They are inferior in this regard, unless they undergo the modification that you spoke off. It takes something like 10 gallons to just start the engine of the Abrams.

    Gas turbines are widely used to generate electriciity and are very efficient. The problem comes when you try to use them to power a heavy vehicle... then their lack of torque leads to enormous fuel consumption and inefficiency.

    The point is that making more and more powerful gas turbines is not that hard... look at helicopters the 2,700hp engines used in the current Mi-28N and Ka-52 would be very useful in big heavy vehicles... and the 11,500hp engines used for the Mi-26 are even more powerful... the key however is to use electric drive vehicles and use the GTs to just provide electricity.

    it is in field tests since 2014 and the government asked for getting the Vikhr production back up again and in 2019/2020 i expect that we can se Hermes-A more or less at the brink of replacing the Vikhr and Vikhr will remain for the same purpose Shturm remains despite having Ataka-V/VM missiles, as a cheaper version for lower value targets on the battlefield.

    Production orders for Vikhr have kept Kalashnikov afloat and is a good missile for the Hokum family as they were integrated into the fire control system of those helos.

    They were designed to be very cheap to make... so they only have two control fins instead of four and manouver as they roll to simulate four fins... the savings in servo motors and simplicity in design makes them very cheap weapons, plus their range and power mean as a cheaper weapon they are better than ataka and shturm and krisantema... the latter are cheap too... and good enough for the majority of land targets. There are few targets that would require a Hermes missile with a 20km range and 30kg warhead... modern western tank from the front is about all.

    The Hermes is a unified design related to the SA-22 two stage missile and will have a range of sensors/seekers making it a very flexible and capable system.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:58 pm