I'm not going to quote you as you're a horrible person who over explains things
My apologies... it is just that I often get in to very long discussions on internet forums and I find it is less complicated if I am clear about everything I say, not only for the person I am chatting with but also for others following the discussion.
I know it makes me sound preachy and like I am talking down to people and it is not intended that way.
I just find it saves a bit of typing and a lot of (misplaced) anger and frustration when I am clear about what I mean and why.
Wrong, Nakidka reduces IR from the sides, as that's where it's layed over. Really not sure why you say it's impossible.
It is layered at the sides because Russian T-72s have rear mounted engines that have their exhausts at the side. If it only worked on the sides it wouldn't be worth the bother because it was primarily designed to reduce radar signature and optical signature and IR signature from aerial recon platforms. If it was only supposed to work from the sides why have anything over the top of the vehicle when simply strapping a couple of sheets to the side like the rubber material the side ERA is attached to would be quicker and easier?
"Chuck, why is that large white square moving quite fast with exhaust fumes everywhere?"
"Looks like a T-90, Bob."
Nope. It would look white if it was freezing cold or very hot depending upon the polarity of the sensor. The material tends to show up as the same temperature and the things around the tank rather than hotter or colder, so the gray background will have a blob the same colour/brightness that you can't tell from the background... that is how it works to defeat the auto target tracker in Javelin. With the auto target tracker defeated the only way to fire a Javelin at it is to manually guided it in SACLOS mode like a normal TOW where it will have to penetrate the armour like any other non top attack missile.
As I mentioned above quite some time ago... there was a video of a test where a Javelin was fired at an old T-55. The T-55 was an old range target and had been sitting there for years and was not operational. That meant it was the same temperature as the background because it had no engine and it hadn't been driven anywhere so before they could fire their Javelin in fire and forget top attack mode they had a structure that held lots of hair dryers together and they heated the outside of the tank up till it stood out in the thermal imager so they could get a lock on it and fire at it in...
To add to that, FPA (Focal Plane Arrays) are more advanced seekers that the are less susceptible to counter measures such as a simple cloak.
It is not a matter of how advanced the FPA is... in fact looking at the image in the viewer a modern second generation Thermal Imager has a much better image than this, but was probably too expensive to put in the nose of a missile to blow up when used properly.
An object that is the same temperature as the other things around it will not stand out enough to be auto tracked... even if it is moving.
Yeah, T-90s can generally on survive a Javelin if the Javelin hits anywhere on the front of the tank. Which would be a highly unlikely scenario to say the least.
Except if ARENA is operating because in SACLOS mode the Javelin is no longer diving top attack. Yes I know ARENA is not currently in service, but it shows how the different systems compliment each other.
Didn't we discuss this before? K-5 v.s. M829A1 = K-f, K-5 v.s. M829A2 = Tie?, K-5 v.s. M829A3 = M829A3.
K-5 isn't Relict or Kaktus. The war between protection and attack is ongoing so which is in the lead at the moment only matters if both sides go to war right now. As that is rather unlikely then there is no point making a big deal about it now. Just put into service what you have at the moment and work on the new stuff.
Oh, 2 cm longer gonna hurt the An-124? It can carry the tonnage to support bigger tanks.
What improvement will a 2cm length increase actually make?
Why redesign a tank for 2cm?
An-124s are going to be busy moving much heavier items BTW, the Il-76, Il-476, and An-70 will be moving the Tanks when they are moved by air. That is why their payloads are in the roughly 50 ton or heavier range.
Which coincidentally has to do with size, as more size means more places to store it.
Not at all. Storing all ammo and fuel externally would make the crew completely safe from a fuel or ammo explosion. Would also make it vulnerable to enemy fire of course and a tank without fuel or ammo or both is a heavily armoured pill box, an expensive heavy 3 man troop transporter or a paperweight.
And any proof of said system?
I can't prove you exist yet I talk to you.
The program in question is top secret, but said to be revolutionary breaking new ground in several technology areas including the combination of existing technologies to create new capabilities. Lets face it... 30 years ago they took an aircraft mounted radar and a helmet mounted sight and an aircraft mounted IRST and combined the systems in their fighter aircraft so that the different sensors could use their advantages and minimise their disadvantages. For example the Radar emitted energy that could be detected, but the IRST could determine angle to a target with much better angular accuracy than any radar. By combining the two the IRST could detect and track targets and the radar could be slaved to the IRST lock. The IRST could only determine range within about 8km with a laser rangefinder, but with an IRST lock you also had a radar lock so a ranging pulse from the radar would flash for a milisecond on an enemies RHAWs and not really be noticed amongst the noise of the average battlefield but it would be enough to get the range to the target. Enough for an IR BVR missile launch if the target was in range.
The helmet mounted sight could also be used to direct the IRST and Radar to targets too, and the high offboresight seeker of the R-73 could be directed by all three.
Helmet mounted sights, radars, and IRSTs were not new in the early 1980s but the way the Soviets used them all together with a high off boresight IR guided missile was revolutionary... though seldom acknowledged in the west.
One more thing, T-95 = dead.
Rubbish. The guy cutting funds controls the funds not the last remaining tank factory in Russia. Russian Army funding for the T-95 has been cut for the 2010-2015 period but where else are they going to look for a replacement for the T-90? I rather doubt the French will sell them the Leclerc... you can hardly compare a simple vessel like Mistral and a MBT. The Russians didn't even share the composition of the T-90s frontal armour with the Indians... why would France share such things with Russia... even for a large amount of cash?
There is still no evidence that the frontal armour design of the Leclerc is any stronger than that of the T-90 anyway.
The Russians have 20,000 tanks in storage and the Navy has the priority for funds. Tanks and APCs have been given a low priority.
When it comes to what replaces the T-90 however it will be based on the T-95 that will probably be lighter, cheaper and have more Russian components.
And I see this where?
I am just saying that if 360 degree coverage is a requirement that this would be simple to achieve.
Whatever KBP develops to replace the ARENA might be similar to ARENA or fundamentally different. I rather doubt they would drop out of the APS making business.
Russia has fine Military equipment, but it's easily agreeable that T-90s are just T-34s with tonnes of make up on. Start from scratch, maybe you'd impress some customers.
Why? The M1 Abrams... with its British Armour and Belgian coaxial Machine gun and its German smoothbore main gun and its electronics designed by Americans but probably made in China or Taiwan is fundamentally the same as the Sherman... it still even has a human loader.
The change from the M60 to the M1 was made clear because of the design of the composite armour used in the M1 made it look different but it is basically the same layout and design... though twice the weight.
The Soviets started using composite armour in the T-64 and its effect on the external appearance is rather less pronounced, yet the combination of armour and ERA it manages to approximate the protection level of the much larger M1A2 while being almost 30 tons lighter.
BTW I have read the US is unhappy with the weight of the M1 Abrams and is looking at a tank... in the 40 ton range... who should replace what now?