Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:30 pm

    That's a long gap between May and the beginning of 2016.

    I wonder if they're going to try to flesh out all the variants before they're handed over to the military for testing.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:34 pm

    Just show the damn thing already because i'm starting to become impatient Laughing

    Anyway i'm very curious about the APS system..like their radar specifications, for some reason i never seen technical specs for APS radar like their detection range and frequency they used.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:18 am

    Zivo wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    AbsoluteZero wrote:
    If this comes rolling down the streets on May 9th... the tears of russian military detractors, I can taste them.

    I think the anti russian trolls will always find a way to downplay this development though, like they'll say it wont be built in meaningful numbers, its weak, and the likes, I've seen them do it alot on mp lol

    They will complain until the west catches up and copies Armata, then they will sing from the highest mountain about autoloaders and indestructible crew capsules. Laughing

    Probably the most interesting aspect is the APS system attached to Armata. 'Afghanistan' is the name but it'll be using the PAK-FA's X-Band AESA radar...but what does that truly entail? Would the radar retain the 400 km range? If so then would that mean that various Armata vehicles in service would be a bona fide piece of Russia's IAD puzzle? 2000+ Armata's with 400 km range X-band AESA radar would provide excellent additional radar coverage (especially for low flying objects) for the Russian territory if I believe what it is to be true. 'Afghanistan' is Armata's APS, but what would stop them from going further? What if there was additional room for a modular Morfey missile attachment to be placed in the hull? Combined with the 400 km X-Band AESA, the Armata platform could potentially come standard with SHORAD capabilities, only time will tell if that turns out to be true.

    They're not going to slap the PAK FA's radar on armata and call it a day, lol.

    Armata will have small AESA units. Besides being a primary element of the APS, the radar will act as Armata's ears, "listening" for infantry movement, and pointing the gun were it "heard" the enemy shooting from.

    It all depends on the cardinal perimeters of the radar, and of course they wont call it a day because they're going to want to test the effectiveness of the AESA in a BMS, and how capable it would be working with other Armata's with the same radar. I really hope they don't nerf the power, instead they should have it come with variable settings. For day to day duties (exercises, drills) they should have the radar set at low settings (like 5 km range), and if there working with infantry near by then they should probably turn it off (for safety reasons), but in war if the 'OPFOR' has CAS aircraft than the full power 400 km range could come in handy. The 57 mm gun vehicles and the Pantsir and Tor vehicles on Armata platforms will be greatly enhanced by the extra eyes and ears sharing information in a BMS and IAD environment. Then there's the aerospace defense forces who will likely have vehicles (to protect S-400/S-500 brigades) with the same radar which should give additional help to defend the Russian Federation's airspace from low flying cruise missiles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:52 am

    Would the radar retain the 400 km range? If so then would that mean that various Armata vehicles in service would be a bona fide piece of Russia's IAD puzzle?

    I suspect the radar fitted to the armata MBT will be rather more like the side radars in the nose of the PAK FA than the main front facing radar.

    I would expect the radar arrays will be surface mounted and fixed... covering 360 degrees as well as up to look for incoming diving top attack missiles and of course aircraft.

    They will likely greatly reduce the power because long range detection is less useful but your comments about IAD... while likely tongue in cheek are not actually that silly.

    Any battle management system is only as useful as the data put into it... imagine a computer game where the locations of enemy forces are not preprogrammed... To get enemy position data you need sensors and the more sensors adding data to the data picture the better.

    Platforms like AWACS and JSTARs like aircraft can add enormous volumes of data rapidly but information from other platforms can be just as important if not more so.

    So i guess they'll be showing it on Victory day 2015 before state trials?

    The PAK FA is still in prototype stage and we have seen it.

    That's a long gap between May and the beginning of 2016.

    I wonder if they're going to try to flesh out all the variants before they're handed over to the military for testing.

    When it has passed state testing they will likely begin serial production... it makes sense to have all the variants ready for production at the same time so armata brigades can be produced together as brigades.

    Anyway i'm very curious about the APS system..like their radar specifications, for some reason i never seen technical specs for APS radar like their detection range and frequency they used.

    From memory the radar for Arena and Drozd were both MMW radar with fixed antenna covering sectors... very much like an AESA radar would. From memory detection range was 100m or not much more and a fraction of a second was needed to calculate the intercept and trigger the munitions.

    Then there's the aerospace defense forces who will likely have vehicles (to protect S-400/S-500 brigades) with the same radar which should give additional help to defend the Russian Federation's airspace from low flying cruise missiles.

    Any data they collect can be added to the BMS and IAD... making both much more accurate and up to date.


    _________________
    “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

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:45 am

    ...Actually maintaining the range of 400 km makes a lot of sense, the Pentagon is threatening to redeploy land based cruise missiles to Europe with the possible end of the INF treaty...so having thousands of Armata vehicles with 400 km range AESA's capable of seeing low flying objects would be highly convenient, Armata based Pantsir's and Tor's would only benefit. The best solution is to keep the same range, but have toggable levels of power for different purposes. The jamming capability would be quite useful in defeating CAS aircraft like attack helicopters.















    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:26 am

    The roof mounted guns on the model don't appear to have a feed system. The artist should have added some.

    Aside from that, it's the best looking tank I've ever seen.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:01 am

    Zivo wrote:The roof mounted guns on the model don't appear to have a feed system. The artist should have added some.

    Aside from that, it's the best looking tank I've ever seen.

    One of the best 'concept/fan art' that I've ever seen...but 2 to 3 pages back I already mentioned the flaws in this nice looking piece of fan art:

    1.) On the right side of the turret there seems to be a 4-barreled GSH-12.7 vulcan (like the ones you would see on Soviet Mil Mi-24's of the 80's) but the model shown to Rogozin was a 6-barreled GSH-6-23 vulcan. Several magnitudes more powerful in comparison than the one shown in the fan art.

    2.) On the left side there's seems to be a 30 mm autocannon, but the model shown to Rogozin is a 40 mm Balkan grenade launcher.

    3.) The main gun seems to be a high pressure smooth-bore 125 mm MBT cannon, while the model shown to Rogozin is a medium pressure rifled 120 mm artillery/mortar.

    4.) Another potential error may'be the chassis itself. It seems they used the T-90MS chassis, but no one knows (outside UVZ and the Russian MOD) what the final chassis will look like. There's also competing designs of the Armata chassis, even ones that look significantly different such as the heavy armor chassis shown at the bottom of the image on the right side of the photo:


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:19 am

    The best solution is to keep the same range, but have toggable levels of power for different purposes. The jamming capability would be quite useful in defeating CAS aircraft like attack helicopters.

    There is no way the PAK FA main radar could detect low flying cruise missiles from 400km range while sitting on a runway at an airport. Once in the air that should be no problem but the armata wont get airborne so for very low flying targets like a cruise missile it will be limited to a range of less than 20km and depending on the terrain probably much less than 20km.

    Another aspect is the cost... a full power AESA radar is expensive and when you increase the range by 1/3rd you triple the volume that needs to be scanned and targets detected and tracked. ie going from 12km range to 18km range increases the volume of airspace by 3 times.

    It would be cheaper to use tethered airships to monitor airspace... especially in mountains or isolated regions.

    1.) On the right side of the turret there seems to be a 4-barreled GSH-12.7 vulcan (like the ones you would see on Soviet Mil Mi-24's of the 80's) but the model shown to Rogozin was a 6-barreled GSH-6-23 vulcan. Several magnitudes more powerful in comparison than the one shown in the fan art.

    The model shown to Rogozin was a BMPT, this appears to be MBT. The US 20mm gatling cannon fitted to most of its fighter aircraft and also used on the CIWS Phalanx is called Vulcan. Russian and Soviet gatlings are not called Vulcan.

    The 23 x 115mm round is certainly more powerful than the 12.7 x 108mm HMG round, but not several magnitudes more powerful. The heavier HE projectile is much more effective, but its 700m/s muzzle velocity is actually lower than the 12.7mm round.

    The ammo is very similar in size as the 23mm round is based on the slightly larger 14.5mm HMG round (14.5 x 114mm).

    A new 4 barrel 23 x 115mm gatling gun would be not too bad... the 10-12,000 rpm rate of fire of the 6 barrel 23mm gun was a bit excessive.

    2.) On the left side there's seems to be a 30 mm autocannon, but the model shown to Rogozin is a 40 mm Balkan grenade launcher.

    Because the model was a BMPT that would engage a range of targets... in many ways a 120mm rifled gun/mortar and 30mm cannon could be considered a replacement for the 100mm rifled gun and 30mm cannon of the BMP-3, with the 40mm grenade launcher as a bonus low velocity indirect fire weapon.

    3.) The main gun seems to be a high pressure smooth-bore 125 mm MBT cannon, while the model shown to Rogozin is a medium pressure rifled 120 mm artillery/mortar.

    Makes sense if the new model is a MBT and the old model is a BMPT.



    _________________
    “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

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  medo on Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:11 pm

    Interesting pictures of Armata tank. But one thing they forget to draw on it, gunners sight. it only have commanders rotating sight. Other question is, what elevation will have Gatling and 2A42 gun?

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:23 pm

    Best defense against Cruise missiles is a very powerful counter electronic/jamming wall across the Russian borders.
    Specially closer to Baltic states and Poland.  Because long range Cruise missiles depends on GPS guidance those can be easily jammed..  Also it will not be bad for Russia to have decoys of their S-400s and S-500s missiles.

    Pantsirs and TORs can also intercept them.. but the counter electronics war have to be there just in case.. this way..
    IF US and its Baltic cronies become crazy and launch a surprise full scale attack on Russia by cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.. all of them will be jammed and never hit their intended targets.

    And EMP walls across Russian borders that can be activated at will ,whenever is need ,will be even better.. it will do wonders.. it will short circuit all the electronics of any low flying missile. This are very doable things that Russia can do right now ..and do not require major investment.. or major research.. as it is the case of creating a new tank or a new combat jet.

    Counter electronics and EMP stations can also be very effective against drones too.

    And for detecting low flying drones and cruise missiles on time.. Aerostat with radars on its belly can become very economically effective to scan for 24 hours non stop all Russian Borders.. not even birds will pass undetected. To scan with planes is most costly and can only be done for small period.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 01, 2015 4:14 am

    Interesting pictures of Armata tank. But one thing they forget to draw on it, gunners sight. it only have commanders rotating sight. Other question is, what elevation will have Gatling and 2A42 gun?

    The lack of a gunners sight suggests this is fan art or a simplified design released early like those early pictures of PAK FA.

    To be useful the external auto cannons would need a 60 degree elevation at least but 70 degrees or slightly more would be better and should be possible considering the mount positions.

    The fact that there is no ammo feed, in addition to no gunners sight suggests a simple mockup... I would suspect that the light gatling might have traverse as well as elevation options and could be controlled by the commander, while the main gun and 30mm gun could be controlled by the gunner so he would need a sight that elevated to allow for their use.

    Best defense against Cruise missiles is a very powerful counter electronic/jamming wall across the Russian borders.
    Specially closer to Baltic states and Poland. Because long range Cruise missiles depends on GPS guidance those can be easily jammed.. Also it will not be bad for Russia to have decoys of their S-400s and S-500s missiles.

    Taking it further, the best defence against cruise missile attack is a widespread dedicated command whose purpose is to monitor russian airspace from ground level to outer space. Together will long range radar... ground, air, and space based, and other sensor assets, it should also have aircraft and ground based defences. That would include large numbers of obsolete systems like SA-3 which is in large numbers available and cheap and certainly capable of bringing down a cruise missile, but also newer more capable systems. Even Osa brought down several cruise missiles in Iraq.

    the S model Igla actually had a proximity fuse added to enable it to engage small targets. I have read about a test where 9 Malyutka ATGMs (AT-3 Sagger) were fired to fly at low altitudes as targets for the original Igla missiles. Only 5 were shot down because the remaining 4 missiles did not make contact with the targets because of their small size and because they needed an impact to set off the warheads of the Iglas the 4 that missed just flew past without destroying the missiles.

    I would assume that with proximity fuses the Igla-S should have defeated all 9 targets and a cruise missile is not smaller than an AT-3.

    I expect Verba would be able to get a lock on at much greater ranges so would be even more effective.

    Pantsirs and TORs can also intercept them.. but the counter electronics war have to be there just in case.. this way..
    IF US and its Baltic cronies become crazy and launch a surprise full scale attack on Russia by cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.. all of them will be jammed and never hit their intended targets.

    Actually engaging targets as they entered Russian air space and also targeting the launch sites of those attacking missiles would be the most efficient response.

    And EMP walls across Russian borders that can be activated at will ,whenever is need ,will be even better.. it will do wonders.. it will short circuit all the electronics of any low flying missile. This are very doable things that Russia can do right now ..and do not require major investment.. or major research.. as it is the case of creating a new tank or a new combat jet.

    EMP walls would also knock out defensive systems too... much better to ensure complete coverage over Russian air space by radar and EO and to remain alert with good communications systems connecting the air defence forces with the other branches of the Russian military.

    Counter electronics and EMP stations can also be very effective against drones too.

    Sending aircraft in peacetime is still the best option as a pilot can observe the target and make decisions based on what they see. A good targeting pod with magnified optics and data communications means that the target can be filmed and that image data sent to the HQ to decide whether to shoot it down or not.

    Most drones when jammed will try to fly back to base and land.

    And for detecting low flying drones and cruise missiles on time.. Aerostat with radars on its belly can become very economically effective to scan for 24 hours non stop all Russian Borders.. not even birds will pass undetected. To scan with planes is most costly and can only be done for small period.

    Very true... the best solution would be large radar installations, plus many more mobile systems including aerostats... the latter would be especially useful in mountains. Aircraft make sense for intercepting targets or adding extra eyes in places where a better look is needed.

    I don't think fitting every tank out for the purpose of air defence makes sense because their primary job is not to sit out in the open emitting enormously powerful radar waves.

    Having radar will allow long range detection of enemy vehicles and perhaps using encrypted signals IFF could be included so enemy tanks can be detected at long range and engaged safely.

    They wont be worried about any cruise missiles flying over head.


    _________________
    “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

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  medo on Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:47 am

    GarryB wrote:the S model Igla actually had a proximity fuse added to enable it to engage small targets. I have read about a test where 9 Malyutka ATGMs (AT-3 Sagger) were fired to fly at low altitudes as targets for the original Igla missiles. Only 5 were shot down because the remaining 4 missiles did not make contact with the targets because of their small size and because they needed an impact to set off the warheads of the Iglas the 4 that missed just flew past without destroying the missiles.

    I would assume that with proximity fuses the Igla-S should have defeated all 9 targets and a cruise missile is not smaller than an AT-3.

    I expect Verba would be able to get a lock on at much greater ranges so would be even more effective.

    Igla-S was produced on experiences with Igla MANPAD in 1999 war in Serbia. original Igla have only contact fuse and was good enough against planes and helicopters, but against smaller targets like cruise missiles and small UAVs, many times near miss saves them, although Igla lock them without problem. Proximity fuse in Igla-S is to make near miss a kill for a target. Better homing head is also a big + for Igla-S and new Verba MANPAD.

    Igla-S and Verba MANPADS are the best weapon against cruise missiles, because they are available in larger numbers and you could far easier place MANPAD teams on possible corridors for cruise missiles. Integrated in IADS through Barnail-T C4I and with new day/night sights, they are deadly against cruise missiles and UAVs, which fly low. All other, what fly higher will be shot down by higher level SAMs and guns.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 02, 2015 10:58 am

    Very good point... a MTLB chassis with a small rear mounted turret with two quad packs of Igla-S or Verba is a much cheaper way of dealing with cruise missiles than S-300s or S-400s or indeed S-350s.

    TOR and Pantsir-S also use dumb, cheap missiles too and should also be invaluable in dealing with enemy launched cruise missiles... but the most critical thing is good radar coverage to allow the missiles to be detected early so units can prepare and be ready for when the cruise missiles enter their kill envelope.

    Actually a next generation 57mm gun with laser guided shells would also be excellent for engaging slow straight and level cruise missile targets cheaply.


    _________________
    “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

    AbsoluteZero
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 81
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-01-29
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  AbsoluteZero on Fri Jan 02, 2015 4:50 pm

    question: why are the wheels on the other half of the tank exposed and has rail armor instead? why cant they just extend the plate covering all the way to the rear? im not a tank expert so it might be for a reason? thanks!

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:28 pm

    AbsoluteZero wrote:question: why are the wheels on the other half of the tank exposed and has rail armor instead? why cant they just extend the plate covering all the way to the rear? im not a tank expert so it might be for a reason? thanks!
    the rail armor for the back half of the side is for rpgs striking perpendicularly - while the "plate" armor on the front half is to cover the hull sides exposed from the front according to safe maneuvering angle.

    and what is safe maneuvering angle? afaik it is 60 degrees of the frontal arc of a vehicle(30 degrees on both sides left and right from an axis that bisects the tank hull or turret, depending on what you want, and centered at the back). if you look at pic. 3 and 4 and the last of the tank you will see that the frontal half covered with "plate" protects the vital parts - crew space, ammo storage and engine compartment while the rail doesnt protect anything.

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:10 am

    There are some things that caught my eyes
    1. The turret of the T-14 looks like the turret on the BMPT that we saw in an earlier show. So maybe the picture of the BMPT is basically the T-14.
    Both barrels have Fume Extractor and that’s mean high pressure gun usually tank’s gun or heavy artillry gun not a mortar.

    2. One of the reasons to have the secondary weapons out of the turret is the need to give them high elevation, usually to fight in urban war. If that’s the case, I would like to use the GSh-23-2L instead of the 0.5”, and also use the 45mm gun (when it will be available) instead the 30mm.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:05 am


    another 3d render ,but not exactly accurate.


    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:03 am

    GarryB wrote:Very good point... a MTLB chassis with a small rear mounted turret with two quad packs of Igla-S or Verba is a much cheaper way of dealing with cruise missiles than S-300s or S-400s or indeed S-350s.

    TOR and Pantsir-S also use dumb, cheap missiles too and should also be invaluable in dealing with enemy launched cruise missiles... but the most critical thing is good radar coverage to allow the missiles to be detected early so units can prepare and be ready for when the cruise missiles enter their kill envelope.

    Actually a next generation 57mm gun with laser guided shells would also be excellent for engaging slow straight and level cruise missile targets cheaply.
    But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers. And rhen the s300 will be needed again. Lets not think to f22 lets think to a heavier aircraft. Now the truck based laser weight is 10 tons. Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:19 am

    Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:08 am

    Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.

    Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
    Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
    Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.

    Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:24 am

    But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers.

    Which will be enormously expensive... a few decent laser beam riding 57mm shells will be lethal to all types of aircraft, from UAVs through to helicopters and A-10 type aircraft out to about 12kms.

    Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.

    The main issue with lasers is power... generation and storage. Also they tend to use very toxic chemicals and either have limited use and are very expensive.

    Currently it doesn't matter what you can fit in an aircraft... you will always be able to put a more powerful weapon on a ground based vehicle and with the ability to plug into the local electricity grid it should be rather more powerful than anything you could fit in a plane.

    Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.

    Modern image processing software can allow a camera or mirror to follow almost any target, so tracking missiles with a laser should not be the biggest problem...

    For the forseeable future lasers are just too expensive.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:53 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.

    Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
    Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
    Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.

    Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.
    Well let me explain. Lets say a laser is efficient only at close range. Then the aircraft will simply let missiles to close and will shoot. Then the aircraft will go close to ground troops that launced the missiles and shoot. Lets say a laser is efficient just at a range of maxim 3km. Well the aircraft would use this range. Or in combination whit missiles.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But when they will be able to put lasers on jet fighter? Recently usa made a truck based laser. In few years whit better batteries they will mount on f22 lasers.

    Which will be enormously expensive... a few decent laser beam riding 57mm shells will be lethal to all types of aircraft, from UAVs through to helicopters and A-10 type aircraft out to about 12kms.

    Whit better batteries and a bigger aircraft than f22 the laser on aircraft is quite feasable. Nowadays the laser kill rockets in long time but can be improve. The only solution will be multiple rockets each whit great speed.

    The main issue with lasers is power... generation and storage. Also they tend to use very toxic chemicals and either have limited use and are very expensive.

    Currently it doesn't matter what you can fit in an aircraft... you will always be able to put a more powerful weapon on a ground based vehicle and with the ability to plug into the local electricity grid it should be rather more powerful than anything you could fit in a plane.

    Also a verba based rocket can have a non linear flight? Cause if so will be hard to hit even by laser. Also protection to laser hits can be put.

    Modern image processing software can allow a camera or mirror to follow almost any target, so tracking missiles with a laser should not be the biggest problem...

    For the forseeable future lasers are just too expensive.
    Expensive but whit 100% chances to kill missiles, tanks or anything else. Worth spending. We should make few aircrafts like this knowing they are invincible excepts enemy lasers
    Lets thinks also ground based lasers cant be use for atack. The ones plugged at the local electricity cant be move as aircrafts can


    Last edited by victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:17 pm; edited 2 times in total

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:58 pm

    victor1985 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Laser weapons the worst, weapons in existence.

    Plattforms like Tanks and Jets can not even provide the needed power to make them anywhere tactical reliable or lethal.
    Laser weapons need direct Line of Sight, which reduces its usefullness.
    Lasers are effected by bad weather and are easily countered by reflective painting, chrome your object and Laser will be useless, stay away from the aircraft for dozens of km and you are absolutley safe from lasers.

    Just a blunt weapon without use for lot of plattforms and inferior to primitive projectiles or SHORADS with Missiles.
    Well let me explain. Lets say a laser is efficient only at close range. Then the aircraft will simply let missiles to close and will shoot. Then the aircraft will go close to ground troops that launced the missiles and shoot. Lets say a laser is efficient just at a range of maxim 3km. Well the aircraft would use this range. Or in combination whit missiles.

    And entering an area where the pilot knows the Missile came from within 3 km of the enemy Air Defense protected zone....sounds truelly stupid, 3km range is effective for even Shilkas, not to mention Tunguskas or Panzirs or anything that is using Missiles.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:08 pm

    Well ive said the laser would kill them instant. Think also at mount more lasers.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:33 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:33 am