Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Share
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  medo on Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:43 pm

    Is any ARENA complex up to now installed in regular army tank or they are still only in prototypes?
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5728
    Points : 5768
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  TR1 on Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:45 pm

    medo wrote:Is any ARENA complex up to now installed in regular army tank or they are still only in prototypes?

    No regular units use it.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:18 am

    Which is part of the problem as I see it.

    Arena is no super powerful invisible shield that makes a vehicle invincible, but it adds a layer of defence that adds a total of about 2-3 tons to the tank that is equivalent to several cms of armour that protects everything including weakspots from the most common threat on the battlefield today... the RPG and most ATGMs.

    It might be expensive, so buy it in small batches and use it, and demand improvements and changes, get the makers used to working directly with the military to provide support so they can earn money on the system and invest some of that money on improvements in design and manufacturing.

    Having it sit on the shelf because it is too expensive for full deployment is a cop out and does nothing to solve the situation.

    They can either introduce it to limited small scale service and work out the bugs and solve the problems and reduce the cost of the system while improving the performance and then when the price is at an acceptable level and it does most things they want it to, put it into mass production.

    The alternative is to leave it on the shelf while the company the makes it neglects it because it is not generating money and in 5 years time the Russian Army will suddenly realise that while it created the technology for active self protection systems for tanks in the 1980s in the form of the Drozd system that was operationally tested in Afghanistan, that they have lost any lead that might have given them and they will either have to buy foreign stuff and start from there or throw enormous amounts of cash at the problem to start from scratch with a whole new generation system... both of which will be expensive... and the age old question... who will sell you their latest APS system?

    A labour government in the UK wont help because they don't have APS systems.

    Lycz3
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 8
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2012-01-08

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Lycz3 on Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:44 pm

    They are not aquiring APS systems simply because there isn't a need for them. A tank has to be as versatile as possible without requring a change on it's configuration. What is needed is a system which gives universal protection, against RPGs, missiles, and kinetic tank fired rounds. Having this in mind, an APS with all it's expense, added weight, etc and which only partially solves the problem (like current Arena or Drozd) what will certainly not do is see extensive adoption among the tank fleet.

    They could adopt them in limited units for specific scenarios but again, it would not be very suitable to have a small number of expensive systems.

    When they will bring these systems to really good versatile level, then they will have more opportunities. And such work is being carried out in Russia. Well, their APS systems are the most mature, and have the best characteristics. And will have.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is any ARENA complex up to now installed in regular army tank or they are still only in prototypes?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:57 am

    But that is part of the problem... small batch use will make them stay expensive.

    Personally I think the future is integration, ultimately the best APS would be an ERA brick that can be launched directly into the path of the incoming round at a range of 4-5 metres from the tank or more.

    You would have a double layer of ERA, with the outer brick launched in the path of incoming threats, while the underbrick acts like built in ERA or in this case NERA.

    The sensors that activate the outer layer ERA can be connected to the sensor systems of the tank to detect targets at short, medium and long ranges like a fighters radar system.

    Between the layers of ERA you'd have Nakidka and the outer ERA panels will be made of nonradar low IR signature materials.

    When the Russian Army had 20,000 tanks then ARENA was too expensive, but now that they are looking at a tank force of less than 8,000 then they need to start protecting their tanks with everything they have.

    At the end of the day... even if ARENA only defends against RPGs it is still much better than nothing.

    It is like saying we should transport troops in trucks because it does not matter what level of protection you provide the enemy will always develop a weapon to defeat it... so it is cheaper to use trucks.

    The fact that ARENA does not stop Javelin is not a reason against ARENA... very few of Russians current enemies she will come to blows with have Javelin in large numbers, and while they are developing better more comprehensive systems they can get experience with ARENA, both in terms of operating it and in making it in large quantities.

    I rather suspect that the companies that make Drozd and ARNEA will have been working on upgrades for the T-95 and now for Armata.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:10 pm

    IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5728
    Points : 5768
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:18 pm

    The T-90 has been extensively shot up in testing.

    Amusingly enough, the Oplot cannot say the same, whatsoever.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:23 pm

    Austin wrote:IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"


    The original article "Impenetrable Russian Tank Armor Stands Up To Examination" (which followed another famous article publied always on JDW an year before under the name ""Russian tanks immune to attack says German expert ") is of 1997 not 2007 Wink and some of parts has been added.

    This is likely a wrongly reported version taken from the net.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:22 am

    From the same article

    Andrei Tarasenko own website published his article about the same all the T-90A. It has a plaque on bronezaschite. Honestly, these are too low, but I will not dwell on this fact and insist. Simply quote, conditionally agreeing with them: to determine the equivalent BPS Tarasenko protect the front part of the T-90A at 800mm. At the same site Tarasenko in his own article, "U.S. tank ammunition caliber 120mm" gives the following values ​​of American armor penetration BPS, calculated from Lanza Odermata: M-829A1-651 mm, M-829A2 - 710 mm, M-829A3 - 770 mm. In addition, for modifications A1 and A2 are also forecasted values ​​of the Russian Institute of Steel and data TASOM. A1 for 700 and 635mm, respectively, for A2 - 750 and 620mm
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:40 am

    The T-90 has been extensively shot up in testing.

    Amusingly enough, the Oplot cannot say the same, whatsoever.

    Indeed, it reminds me of the Lynx vs Tigr-M competition where the Tigr was better cross country, so the main reason for buying the Lynx is because it is supposedly better protected, but because Russia has not been allowed to test their protection levels they really don't have any hard data to base that on... apart from claims about NATO experience with them.

    The obvious problem there of course is that conflicts in Chechnia and Georgia that represent the sort of conflicts Russia might find itself in in the near future involve rather better quality anti vehicle weapons than those the west has come up against in Iraq and Afghanistan.


    I used to think the T-80U was the best Soviet tank, till I read the results of the tests on Fofanovs page that clearly showed that the T-90 wasn't just an upgraded T-72 with T-80 electronics.

    The T-90s armour was better than the T-80s and the autoloader arranged the ammo in a much safer way than the T-80 did. The result is that the T-90 is better protected and safer if penetrated... with real tests you can say such things for certain, whereas without tests you can only assume.


    _________________
    “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

    Vympel
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 112
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2013-01-30

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Vympel on Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:I used to think the T-80U was the best Soviet tank, till I read the results of the tests on Fofanovs page that clearly showed that the T-90 wasn't just an upgraded T-72 with T-80 electronics.

    The T-90s armour was better than the T-80s and the autoloader arranged the ammo in a much safer way than the T-80 did. The result is that the T-90 is better protected and safer if penetrated... with real tests you can say such things for certain, whereas without tests you can only assume.

    The best part about that is I'm positive given the time the tests were carried out it was the original T-90 with the cast turret shape of the T-72B, rather than the welded Vladimir turret.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:29 am

    Is Shtora-1 capable to jamming Kornet-ATGM Guidance ? How about system like LAHAT can Shtora-1 jam it ?
    avatar
    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1498
    Points : 1532
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Zivo on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:20 am

    Good question.

    I believe LAHAT is laser homing, so it might not be as vulnerable to IR dazzlers as some of the other weapons out there. However, the laser designator will trip the LWS and the automatic smoke screen will still render the missile useless, as Lahat wont be able to locate the designators reflection through the smoke.

    I'm not sure about Kornet though. Beam riders work by sending out multiple lasers that form a vertical conical grid pattern with the center on the target. The missile knows what sector it's in based on a sensor on the rear of the missile that detects the laser, calculates were it's at on the grid, and corrects accordingly. Basically, the missile does the guiding and the laser beam itself wouldn't really be effected by the dazzlers. Note the contrast between beam riding systems and weapons like the BGM-71. With the TOW, the missile has an IR flare on it's back, facing the launcher, and the launcher sends a signal through the wires to the missile and attempts to center the flare with the target. Think of it like lining up two dots. Shtora works by making one of the dots so bright that the system cannot locate the flare on the missile, thus sending the missile out of control.

    Back to Kornet, the only link in the chain I see being affected is the guy shooting the missile. I'm not sure how bright the IR dazzlers would be in his scope. Another thing is the laser beam that guides the missile to the target is rather weak and supposedly will not trip laser warning systems, thus Shtora wouldn't even engage the missile in the first place.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:55 pm

    Is Shtora-1 capable to jamming Kornet-ATGM Guidance ? How about system like LAHAT can Shtora-1 jam it ?


    I responded to this same question some time ago , i will try to resume the central points:



    A "classical" laser guided ATGM detect ,with its seeker, the coded laser radiation reflected from the intended target ; in substance the designation beam must be strong enough and maintain a sufficient cohesion not only to allow an efficient irradiation of the target -up to its maximum range- but ,above all, to allow its diffracted component to be received back by the missile's seeker so to obtain its precise position .


    This produce four tactically important effects:

    1) LWR on board the designated target have a very easy time in detecting and triangulate exact originating position of the designation laser beam.
    2) Is not possible to point the laser above the target (to prevent its crew to be alerted of the impending attack) because the missile's seeker would not receive any beam return and would go totally out of track (the maximum possible to do is to be lucky enough to have an environmental element ,with the right reflective qualities, very near to the target to use as "momentary target" for the ATGM in-flight Rolling Eyes ) .
    3) Any measure present on the intended target (like ad-hoc paints and surface materials present on modern MBTs and IFVs) aimed at reduce laser reflective index reduce significantly the range and the Pk of a similarly guided ATGM.
    4) Any effect capable to disperse the laser beam's cohesion or block its passage ,both toward and from the target, interrupt instantly also missile guidance putting it out track( even for very brief beam interruptions the chances, by part of the seeker, to re-acquire the right angular FOV and capture another time the beam reflection become near to zero).



    Laser beam riding ATGMs, such as Kornet series, instead DON'T employ the laser beam "reflected" from the target and captured from head mounted seeker to home on it, but use the laser sensors placed of the rear part of the missile to compute the angular projection from the original irradiating point so to calculate the necessary correction to remain within it at the variation of its direction; in reality ,therefore, it DON'T HOME on any target but literally "encounter" a target placed on the same line of the laser beams within the conical projection of which it remain. (only to provide a clear example : one advanced training exercise with those kind of missiles involved the pointing of the beams just over the top of a near hill only to collimate them ,in the last seconds of missile's flight with targets placed on hill's surface simulating enemy infantry fire positions and APC or with targets randomly popping-out from the top of the same hill simulating instead the rotors of enemy helicopter's using terrain masking techniques).


    The different working principles of laser beam riding missiles have as effect that :

    1) The necessary magnitudo for the rider laser beam is immensely inferior in respect to that of classical laser homing missiles with the effect that possibility to alert even the most modern LWR is very low.
    2) The shooters can point the beams literally anywhere (in particular them can be pointed above the intended target to don't offer to enemy any chance to become aware of the impending attack) and redirect easily the missile from a target to another.
    3) Targets with low or very low laser reflective index can be attacked without any penalty.
    4) An hindering element capable to block the riding laser beam must be placed between the irradiating point and the back sensors on the missile in order to successfully interrupt missile guidance !!
    This is the reason because those missiles are portrayed as unjammable.




    Returning to your main question : a 3D17 delivered aerosol screen at 60 m from an IFV or a MBT would interrupt instantly missile guidance of a LAHAT (the wavelengths blocked extend even to wide majority of thermal ones !!) at any point of its flight; the same 3D17 aerosol screen at 60 meters from a target attacked by a Kornet-EM would interrupt missile guidance.....just 20 hundredths of a seconds before impact with the intended target Very Happy .


    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:36 am

    Is Shtora-1 capable to jamming Kornet-ATGM Guidance ? How about system like LAHAT can Shtora-1 jam it ?

    Kornet uses a laser boresighted to a crosshair in a sight. All the so called guidance takes place on board the missile which looks back at the launch platform to see the laser and its position within that laser and manouvers itself into the centre of the beam.

    Neither the missile nor the launch platform actually need to see the target and therefore there is not much chance of jamming it.

    Besides Shtora is 1990s stuff... I rather suspect they have moved forward and have an ESM suite that allows jamming of IIR and MMW radar guided weapons as well as optically guided too using a DIRCM defence 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

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:04 am

    Thanks Mindstorm you have my vote.

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Returning to your main question : a 3D17 delivered aerosol screen at 60 m from an IFV or a MBT would interrupt instantly missile guidance of a LAHAT (the wavelengths blocked extend even to wide majority of thermal ones !!) at any point of its flight; the same 3D17 aerosol screen at 60 meters from a target attacked by a Kornet-EM would interrupt missile guidance.....just 20 hundredths of a seconds before impact with the intended target Very Happy .

    Wouldnt the aerosol screen can also be effective against Kornet as the screen would block the view of Kornet operator for couple of minutes and that would give time for the tank to slide off in any direction to its safety.

    I mean as long as the smoke screen blocks the view of the tank in IR/Laser/Thermal and Optical Spectrum it would remain effective against all type of guidance barring perhaps RF MMW seeker that is used in F&F missile

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:06 am

    To Admins.

    I wonder if we could Archive some good post on this thread and have a seperate Archive Thread so that it does not get lost and in future we can use it for FAQ , Many good posters like Mindstorm ,Garry and many others have good post that are worth archiving
    avatar
    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1498
    Points : 1532
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Zivo on Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:26 am

    Nakidka and Bramble combined with a DIRCM system will significantly increase the survivability of vehicles against better equipped hostiles.

    Shtora is a cold war weapon, designed to fight an enemy which relied heavily on the BGM-71 and it would have been frighteningly effective.


    Wouldnt the aerosol screen can also be effective against Kornet as the screen would block the view of Kornet operator for couple of minutes and that would give time for the tank to slide off in any direction to its safety.

    I mean as long as the smoke screen blocks the view of the tank in IR/Laser/Thermal and Optical Spectrum it would remain effective against all type of guidance barring perhaps RF MMW seeker that is used in F&F missile

    Don't forget that Kornet's laser will not trip a laser warning system, so there wont be any aerosol screen there in the first place. IIRC the screen is also effective at disrupting radar due to metallic particulates in the smoke.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:37 am

    Wouldnt the aerosol screen can also be effective against Kornet as the screen would block the view of Kornet operator for couple of minutes and that would give time for the tank to slide off in any direction to its safety.

    It would depend on when during the engagement the smoke is fired... there would be a critical period where the smoke as obscured the operators view long enough for the tank to have moved so the missile will miss, but not long enough for the operator to just move his point of aim to another target nearby to engage instead.

    Otherwise too late with the smoke and the tank will likely get hit anyway, and too long and the operator can simply retarget another platform nearby.

    Anotehr issue of course is that if the Kornet-EM is air launched from a UCAV at medium to high altitude and has been released perhaps at 5-6km range and 3-4km altitude even popping smoke might not suffice as the closure by the launching UCAV means by the time the missile impacts the UCAV will be well above the target so the missile and the beam directing the missile will be near vertical, whereas most defensive smoke screens are developed in front of the tank.

    I mean as long as the smoke screen blocks the view of the tank in IR/Laser/Thermal and Optical Spectrum it would remain effective against all type of guidance barring perhaps RF MMW seeker that is used in F&F missile

    But then that works both ways... what if a team are hiding in a forest with a Laser target marker/rangefinder and simply move to the edge of the forest and lase a few tanks for a short period and then withdraw back into the forest. The tanks that get lased will of course pop smoke and move rapidly to where they think they will have cover based on the general direction they got lased from.

    Once they pop smoke they will be blind too, so a battery of Kristantema vehicles can open up on them from 6km away safe in the knowledge they are being blocked by their targets own countermeasures...

    The result will likely be that they will stop popping smoke immediately and will become more cagey about doing so which means Kornet units will become much more dangerous as their low power beams are difficult to detect.

    That is not to say Shtora is useless... it is just an added layer of protection just like ERA, just like DIRCMS, just like APS, just like Nakidka... just like paint and a few branches.


    _________________
    “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
    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1195
    Points : 1218
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:07 am

    I don't think the Shtora system is fully present in the T-90MS, I can only see the LWS embedded on either side of the turret and the accompanying smoke and aerosol grenades.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:43 am

    Wouldnt the aerosol screen can also be effective against Kornet as the screen would block the view of Kornet operator for couple of minutes and that would give time for the tank to slide off in any direction to its safety.


    Aerosol screen generated by 3D17 grenades do not last for minutes but for seconds (15-25 seconds depending on environmental wind and thermal conditions).

    This segment of efficiency ,obviously, refer exclusively to the time window where density of the active screening elements ,in the generated layer, is still high enough to prevent enemy laser beams to being still capable to designate the protected vehicles or prevent missile seekers employing IR homing to maintain its lock (an event that cause enemy missiles to go lost almost instantly ), but in the visible spectrum ,placed on the boundary of its covered wavelengths, an observer could be capable to recognize useful details of the protected vehicles much before the specified time.

    In substance the efficiency of the Shtora's screen ,as a function of time, degrade starting from the less critical high frequency electromagnetic spectrum covered.

    This is also the main reason for which efficiency of Shtora against television guided missiles is significantly lowered in respect to that against laser and IR guided ones ; this happen in spite that, as previously explained ,a second or two of lock's loss is almost always more than sufficient to ultimately neutralize the missile menace.


    In order to prevent to a Kornet-E operator ,or even worse a Kornet-EM vehicle operator - capable to move in any direction at any speed while guiding the ATGM - to continue at provide useful guidance for its missile toward its target, the crew of the attacked vehicle should deliver manually other overlapping aerosol screens ,at relatively quick rate ,depleting very quickly the 3D17 reserve, and also that action would not assure the hindering of enemy guidance ; a vehicle's detail in the visible spectrum, as small as an antenna a side skirt or even the dust produced by the vehicle in motion would allow enemy operator to guide its Kornet toward the vehicle without any problem.



    I repeat, that happen simply because Shtora's screen, to the contrary of what happen with laser or IR homing missiles, wouldn't break any "lock" between the missile seeker and the attacked vehicle , an event that almost instantly neutralize the menace, but should cover ANY direct and indirect signature element of the vehicle in the visible spectrum from Kornet operator for the entire length of missile's flight.



    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:10 am



    I can only see the LWS embedded on either side of the turret and the accompanying smoke and aerosol grenades.

    You see well Wink


    Forward projecting frequency modulators of "Shtora" ,operating in a rather restricted spectrum, was purposely designed to provide a continuous, not depleteable, defensive measure highly effective against the flare collimators of BGM-71s and HOT ATGMs which was considered ,by analysts, the most common battlefield menaces that advancing forces would have encountered in the three major vectors of attack in Europe.

    It was highly optimized (and very very highly efficient) for the specific role for which it was implemented at the time ; naturally today, with the prevailing estrangement of modern ATGM designs from this type of guidance, this element of Shtora , ,contrarely to the wide spectrum aerosol screening element, has lost a great portion of its defensive potential and, therefore, operative value.



    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3346
    Points : 3466
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:38 pm



    Anyone knows if the Russian army use Arena protection in their active T-90a in service ?
    Saw the parade in 2014 and didn't noticed their tanks using Arena.. any know?

    avatar
    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2774
    Points : 2832
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Mike E on Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:56 pm

    Vann7 wrote:

    Anyone knows if the Russian army use Arena protection in their active T-90a in service ?
    Saw the parade in 2014 and didn't noticed their tanks using Arena.. any know?

    I don't think they do... I could be wrong though.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:40 am

    ARENA has been completely redesigned and is a much lower profile system that is rather less obvious.

    Armata will have a new APS system called Afghanistan.

    ARENA will be for export.

    Standard will be used for lighter domestic vehicles (Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon).


    _________________
    “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 Tanks ERA and APS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri May 26, 2017 7:30 am