Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:24 am

    Hard to say with the 125mm rounds but the 152mm calibre gun launched missiles should have plenty of space for optics and systems to allow smart performance and excellent penetration... improvements in datalinks with UAVs should allow new levels of performance without excessive costs...

    A diving top attack weapon with a calibre of 152mm should have amazing penetration performance... perhaps even stand off detonation so it could explode from 50m distance and penetrate 600-700mm of armour which would be plenty of penetration for a top attack weapon and with a standoff firing distance that would allow it to fire outside the range of modern APS systems...


    _________________
    “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
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 18
    Points : 22
    Join date : 2017-09-18

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:00 pm

    152mm 2a83 could fit multipurpose AT/AA/explosive missile with 20km or more range and could also fire tactical nuclear missiles while also crushing the hopes of nato tank designers to make a tank that can survive Russian tank rounds although you might want a quickloading mechanism like on the Kolitsiya SV to replenish the ammo.

    Its 152mm HE shell would also be useful in urban warfare for blasting fortified buildings like the Red Army did in the great patriotic war with the SU/ISU-152 assault guns but it should also have a 30mm autocanon since some targets just don't need a 152mm shell (technicals trucks armored cars/APCs and so on) and since it has radar a 30mm and 7.62mm combonation for the RWS could automaticaly engage helicopters and missiles since Tunguska and Pantsir cannot get too close to the front lines due to lack of protection.

    Will there perhaps be an air defense variant of the Armata that can get onto the front lines and protect the tanks from planes incoming missiles and would also shed infantry?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:30 am

    An armata division will eventually consist of vehicles on the armata platform... so the engineer vehicle. the ambulance vehicle, the recon vehicle, the gun and missile AD vehicle and the missile AD vehicle will all be Armata based vehicles.

    The MBT, the IFV, the APC, the self propelled artillery, the mortar carrier, the command vehicle... in existing divisions these vehicles are mostly light vehicles based on the BMP or BTR or MTLB... like the ACRV-1 command vehicle is based on the MTLB, or the MSTA artillery vehicle based on the T-80, or the various engineer vehicles based on various other platforms.

    In an Armata division all the vehicles will be Armata based, so the missile and gun AD vehicle in an Armata div will be an Armata chassis with Pantsir-SM mounted on it... the missile only AD vehicle in an Armata division will have TOR... not much different than from today but all vehicles with the same tank level armour and tank level mobility.

    Armata Pantsir-M will replace Tunguska and Armata Tor will likely replace the current TOR. They will be able to operate everywhere the other armata platforms can operate that is the point of a family based approach.

    I very much agree that with the eventual adoption of the 152mm calibre main gun is going to create issues... as the isreali experience shows even a 120mm gun means often targets in urban combat appear where the main gun is too much gun, so a 60mm mortar is carried to engage lighter targets to allow more targets to be engaged... they can carry several 60mm mortar bombs in the space of one 120mm round.

    Looking at the old model of the BMPT with the 120mm gun/mortar, it had a 57mm automatic grenade launcher.

    I believe on one page somewhere in this forum someone mentioned it had a very powerful HE round for it.... comparable with a 76mm HE shell... and as such that would be and ideal secondary support weapon because 152mm rounds are only slightly wider than 125mm rounds but they are much longer and take up rather more space.

    Another potential option would be to have a sabot case that you slip inside a smaller propellent charge and a short very unaerodynamc projectile... a direct fire HE round for a tank wont be used at more than 10km or 20km, so there is no need to have an enormous propellent charge or some great big long heavy shell... it could be a little stumpy projectile 1/5th the length of a normal 152mm HE shell would be.... so you could fit 5 projectiles and 5 propellent charges in the space of a normal round. The round will be 5 times less powerful than a full power round but for many targets even 1/5th of a round will be plenty enough.

    IN terms of anti armour performance even a 1/5 long HEAT charge will be potent because the power of a HEAT round is based on its diameter and not its length...


    _________________
    “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
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 18
    Points : 22
    Join date : 2017-09-18

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:55 am

    putting a smaller he shell is a sabot will not decrease the size that much and the T-14 has a carousel outoloader so the length of the round does not matter and i dough a 1/5 load of HE will have sufficient power to destroy a fortified building in 1 hit like a 152mm HE round would I heard that there was a case in Afganistan where the terrorists had fortified some oil refinery or something and 122mm shells were not enough and they ended up using 240mm Tyulpan mortars.

    As for AA platforms the Tunguska and Pantsir are light platforms and it seems a bit wasteful to mount a light AD armament on a heavy vehicle I would expect the Armata AD to have heavier armament than the Pantsir like 2x 30mm gast guns + 2x 57mm + 8 short range SAMs and maby some ATGMs for self defense.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:45 pm

    The use of the Pantsir missiles is very likely in Armata platforms. They have good range, they are able to shut-down every type of aircraft of the adversary, and are small and agile to use. The question of the size will be likely solved with the amount of Pantsir missiles ready to use (bigger in bigger platforms).

    Even the rockets of the BM-21 are usable in Armata platforms, but with loaders for 100 rockets (roughly) instead of 40.

    The use of Tor missiles in Armata (Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M) platforms is a lot less likely since they have lower range and performance. The Tor missiles likely are not modern enough for the new platforms, despite to be a very capable system today is unlikely to remain 50 years from now (the approximate life of the new units of the new platforms). The SA-15 Tor systems will very likely remain in the units with T-90, BMP-3 and older platform weapons.

    The second option most likely to be mounted in the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M platforms would be the S-350. It would make a good combination with the Pantsir mounted on the same platforms.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:03 am

    putting a smaller he shell is a sabot will not decrease the size that much

    No, what I mean is that a HE shell has a specific length to width ratio so it does not work to just shorten rounds.... you have to make them narrower too,but if you make them narrower and shorter they wont go down a 152mm calibre barrel.

    A short stubby propellent case with a fraction of the propellent of the APFSDS rounds and a shorter narrower HE round.. say 70-80mm calibre with a sabot to fill the barrel width will take up rather less room... you could make them5 times shorter than the full sized 152mm rounds so for each autoloader position you could store 5 rounds.

    i dough a 1/5 load of HE will have sufficient power to destroy a fortified building in 1 hit like a 152mm HE round would I heard that there was a case in Afganistan where the terrorists had fortified some oil refinery or something and 122mm shells were not enough and they ended up using 240mm Tyulpan mortars.

    If the target is a heavy fortified stone or concrete building then standard 152mm HE rounds can be used, but for a sniper or MG position in one room of a building you could fire an 80mm calibre HE shell with say 6-10kgs of HE and a delay fuse so it penetrates the position before detonating.

    As for AA platforms the Tunguska and Pantsir are light platforms and it seems a bit wasteful to mount a light AD armament on a heavy vehicle I would expect the Armata AD to have heavier armament than the Pantsir like 2x 30mm gast guns + 2x 57mm + 8 short range SAMs and maby some ATGMs for self defense.

    Tunguska is 34 tons... it is hardly light. The AD Armata will likely have Pantsir-SM with 40km range SAMs... it might have 12 or perhaps 16 missiles but I think the vehicle would be big enough to also carry a 57mm cannon instead of 30mm cannon in the anti aircraft role. They might separate out the missiles and cannon due to the size of the 57mm gun. TOR will likely remain a missile only system though the armata version might have no turret and a large superstructure with fixed AESA modules and 32 or more ready to launch missiles in vertical tubes. The standard TOR in the latest model has 16 missiles in the turret ready to fire so I would expect the Armata version to carry more.... possibly in a towed trailer with vertical launch missiles ready to fire.

    The use of Tor missiles in Armata (Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M) platforms is a lot less likely since they have lower range and performance. The Tor missiles likely are not modern enough for the new platforms, despite to be a very capable system today is unlikely to remain 50 years from now (the approximate life of the new units of the new platforms). The SA-15 Tor systems will very likely remain in the units with T-90, BMP-3 and older platform weapons.

    The new TOR missiles are smaller and are carried in larger numbers on the original platfom (16 instead of Cool. Range is also increased to about 15km.

    The TOR missiles use sophisticated electronics and sensors on the platform but are cheap simple command guided missiles of very high accuracy.

    Using fixed phased array antennas for search and tracking a large platform like Armata could carry large numbers of missiles which don't need to be pointed in the direction of the target before launch... one vehicle could cover 360 degrees continuously and rapidly launch missiles to defeat all sorts of targets.

    The TOR is intended to engage incoming munitions as well as enemy aircraft so its range is not an issue at all... larger SAMs can engage enemy aircraft before they launch, while TOR can deal with any munitions that have been launched very very effectively.

    The second option most likely to be mounted in the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M platforms would be the S-350. It would make a good combination with the Pantsir mounted on the same platforms.

    S-350 is an Air Force/Navy/air defence force system. the Russian Army has BUK-M3 with 6 heavy long range missiles per vehicle and S-300V4 above 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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The use of Tor missiles in Armata (Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M) platforms is a lot less likely since they have lower range and performance. The Tor missiles likely are not modern enough for the new platforms, despite to be a very capable system today is unlikely to remain 50 years from now (the approximate life of the new units of the new platforms). The SA-15 Tor systems will very likely remain in the units with T-90, BMP-3 and older platform weapons.

    The new TOR missiles are smaller and are carried in larger numbers on the original platfom (16 instead of Cool. Range is also increased to about 15km.

    The TOR missiles use sophisticated electronics and sensors on the platform but are cheap simple command guided missiles of very high accuracy.

    Using fixed phased array antennas for search and tracking a large platform like Armata could carry large numbers of missiles which don't need to be pointed in the direction of the target before launch... one vehicle could cover 360 degrees continuously and rapidly launch missiles to defeat all sorts of targets.

    The TOR is intended to engage incoming munitions as well as enemy aircraft so its range is not an issue at all... larger SAMs can engage enemy aircraft before they launch, while TOR can deal with any munitions that have been launched very very effectively.

    The second option most likely to be mounted in the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M platforms would be the S-350. It would make a good combination with the Pantsir mounted on the same platforms.

    S-350 is an Air Force/Navy/air defence force system. the Russian Army has BUK-M3 with 6 heavy long range missiles per vehicle and S-300V4 above that.

    This is only a label. The S-350 is the natural successor of the SA-11/17 Buk missile system. Standardization is positive for Russia. Only need to be adapted to the new land platforms and this very likely will be done, taking into account that the size of the missile seems to allow it.

    The future range of air defense weapons for Russia seems to be: Pantsir, S-350, S-400, S-500 and A-235. With different variants on different platforms. These are the systems that will be mounted in the modern platforms. Previous air defense systems will remain in their contemporaneous platforms (in some case going from unarmourd tractor elements to armoured, but only that) because they are good for today, and have decades of life still, but are not systems to remain 50 years since now.

    Azi

    Posts : 122
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Azi on Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:53 pm

    eehnie wrote:The second option most likely to be mounted in the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M platforms would be the S-350. It would make a good combination with the Pantsir mounted on the same platforms..
    Combining an armoured platform and S-350??? No!

    eehnie wrote:This is only a label. The S-350 is the natural successor of the SA-11/17 Buk missile system. Standardization is positive for Russia. Only need to be adapted to the new land platformsand this very likely will be done, taking into account that the size of the missile seems to allow it..
    NO! No and no! S-350 replace not the Buk system! It should replace in future the S-300. Because S-400 and S-500 are optimized for long range, so the S-350 close the gap to medium and short range not interfering with S systems above.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:16 am

    Standardisation often makes sense, but sense does not always make sense for everyone.

    If you want real standardisation then S-350 should be R-77s with solid rocket boosters on land and at sea and in the air.

    the next gen medium range AAMs might be S-350 based, with S-500 in air launched form being carried by MiG-41s or even interceptor versions of the Tu-160M2.

    The Army and Navy and Air Force and Aerospace Defence forces all have different requirements that require different tools for the job.


    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:22 pm

    Azi wrote:
    eehnie wrote:The second option most likely to be mounted in the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M platforms would be the S-350. It would make a good combination with the Pantsir mounted on the same platforms..
    Combining an armoured platform and S-350??? No!

    eehnie wrote:This is only a label. The S-350 is the natural successor of the SA-11/17 Buk missile system. Standardization is positive for Russia. Only need to be adapted to the new land platformsand this very likely will be done, taking into account that the size of the missile seems to allow it..
    NO! No and no! S-350 replace not the Buk system! It should replace in future the S-300. Because S-400 and S-500 are optimized for long range, so the S-350 close the gap to medium and short range not interfering with S systems above.

    Did you check the ranges of the S-300 and the S-350? There is like 0 probability that a system with lower range replaces other with higher range at production level.

    Forgeting labels, because in the future air defense missiles are to be unified for the entire Russian Armed Forces and adapted to the needed mobile platforms, this is the current range breakdown (taking maximum ranges) from higher to lower range:

    Over 1000 Km
    A-235

    500 to 1000  Km
    SA-?? S-500

    200 to 500 Km
    SA-21 S-400
    A-135 (silo based)
    SA-5 S-200 (towed)
    SA-10/12/20/23 S-300

    50 to 200 Km
    SA-?? S-350
    SA-11-17 Buk

    Manpad maximum range to 50 Km
    SA-4 Krug
    SA-2 S-75 (towed)
    SA-3 S-125 (towed)
    SA-6 Kub
    SA-22 Pantsir
    SA-15 Tor
    SA-8 Osa
    SA-19 2S6 Tunguska

    Manpads range
    SA-13
    SA-9

    Note that Russia has one new system in every group, except obviously the last, that includes the systems surpassed by the modern manpads, becoming as consequence obsolete.
    The Pantsir will be applied to the new armoured land platforms for sure, and the S-350 likely too.
    The probability of the S-350 being used as replacement of the SA-11-17 Buk at production level is high, very high.

    Azi

    Posts : 122
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Azi on Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:03 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Did you check the ranges of the S-300 and the S-350? There is like 0 probability that a system with lower range replaces other with higher range at production level.
    Why are you trolling?

    The S-300 with his thousands of variants is/was in service in the Russian Ground Forces AND Russian Aerospace Forces! Russian Aerospace Forces receive now S-400, which is in overall aspects better. Soon Russian Aerospace Forces will receive S-500.

    The Russian Ground Forces operate the S-300V, the V stands for GROUND FORCES! There are some new variants operated by the ground froces, like S-300V4.

    It is not known how the S-350 system will be operated, it's likely that both, Aerospace and Ground Forces will operate the system! S-350 is built to parry saturation attacks with cruise missiles and drones. For this task high accuracy is needed and not long range! Indeed it's reversed, you need shorter distance for higher hit ratio! So S-350 will not kill enemy strategic bomber or ICBM, it is planned to parry saturation attacks, kill drones and make tactical frontline bombing impossible.

    The Buk-M3 is a brandnew system, it has nearly nothing common with older Buk systems! It even outperforms older S-300 systems easily. AND and and...it's specially a system build for Russian Ground Forces. So why replacing a new system with S-350? It makes completly NO SENSE! A replacement for Buk-M3 is in development (really early stage) and will come somewhere between 2030 and 2050, but it's not S-350.

    By the way...from size S-350 missiles could fit on armoured platform! But the S-350 system is not intend for use on armoured platforms.

    If we talk about a armoured platform for AD task based on Armata, so we talk maybe about a replacement of the Tor system. And I highly doubt that a big armoured frontline AD system can be implemented into Armata, Kurganetz and Co. A special individual platform is needed. A replacement for current Osa and Strela systems can be easy combined with Armata platform, that makes sense ^^
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:49 pm

    Obviously you have not been checking the ranges of the S-350 projectiles (missiles), neither the dimmensions of the projectiles (missiles) of the S-350.

    The time will talk.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 824
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Isos on Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:15 pm

    Actually buk systems are made to follow tanks in any form of terrain. S-350 wont be able to do so as it is mounted on truck chassi and will be send to protect araes where there is a high value target like an army or a cities or facilities m. Buk will be probably some tens of km in front of the s-350 near the front.

    First s-300 are just 70-90 km. Russia has still plenty of them. S-350 is 120km range so it is a replacement for s 300. And 120 is really enough. A modern fighter will know that it engaged by SAM so it will get cover near the ground and because of radar horizon S400 or s300 won t engage them at max range that s why the made s350 with smaller missile and let s400 scan for big targets and send information for smaller targets. The advantage of s400 are not its missiles but its powerfull radar that can see at 600km.

    Having in your center a s 400 and around it put lot of s3500 and muh more BUK and manpad is the best tactic. S 400 scan and doesn t need to be stealthy. It atracts potential fighters and then let s 350 shot them. If they go low altitude buk and pantsir and manpad will be destroying any targets. So at high altitude they will have to face s400 missiles. At medium altidude s350 and buk and low altitude buks pantsir and manpads. That is how the russian integrated air def works and why it is dangerous. If they lack smaller air def systems, long range system will be destroyed by massive attacks coordinated because they are static systems.

    There is range but there is also altitude to take into acount.

    The other thing to take into account is the ability to destroy enemy airfields. You can t just defend. You have to attack so that enemy airforce has to operate from further and can t protect its ground forces. Russia has cruise missile and iskabders for that and fighter bombers too.

    I've watched a documentry about wars and there was a similitude between WW2 and iraqui invasion. It was the lenght of the suplly chain. Once it is more than 400 km it is very hard to make the war. If you destroy airfield that are 1000 km from the front you have the advantage.

    And then you can use S400 radars to spot fighters coming from far away because they will be flying at high altitude because they have a long flight to do untill they come near the front.

    There are strategies behind evry system not just numbers like range. If you don t know how to use it just don t buy. Israeli had less sophisticated arms during the first arab israeli wars but still managed to win because of better strategies while arabs just used their arms in the simpliest way possible.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:09 am

    This is only a label. The S-350 is the natural successor of the SA-11/17 Buk missile system. Standardization is positive for Russia. Only need to be adapted to the new land platforms and this very likely will be done, taking into account that the size of the missile seems to allow it.

    So if Buk is being replaced by S-350 then why is there a new version of BUK? BUK-M3 has 6 tube launched missiles per TEL and is just being deployed now...

    Did you check the ranges of the S-300 and the S-350? There is like 0 probability that a system with lower range replaces other with higher range at production level.

    Did you?

    The first model (1977) S-300s had a range of about 50km and later models improved that to about 75km.
    Specifically the S-300PMU has a range against aerodynamic targets of 7km to 75km.. PMU1 increases that to from 5km to 150km and PMU2 to from 3km to 200km.

    S-350 makes a nice replacement for such systems because it carries rather more ready to fire missiles with a rather wider range of performances... if a target is detected at 25km at very low level there is no point in launching a 200km range missile at it when you have smaller 40-60km range missiles available. Equally most targets will be within the 140-160km range of the larger S-350 missiles too.
    This will leave longer ranged threats to the heavy missiles of the S-400 batteries, while long range ballistic targets can be engaged with the S-500.

    Forgeting labels, because in the future air defense missiles are to be unified for the entire Russian Armed Forces and adapted to the needed mobile platforms, this is the current range breakdown (taking maximum ranges) from higher to lower range:

    Except that the various branches of the Russian military take care of their own air defence and don't farm the job off to other branches.








    Morfei is also supposed to be an anti missile missile and therefore also used as a short range AAM replacement, but we will see.

    By that token I would expect the 9M96 missiles of the S-350 system would also make ideal medium range AAMs and having little in the way of external control surfaces they should be ideal for internal carriage on 5th gen fighters and stealthy bombers.


    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:51 pm

    Yes, I did, but you not, because then you would not be asking this about adversaries at 25 Km. The range of the S-350 includes until now (it will be more) the:

    9M100 of 40 Km of maximum range (so the S-350 has the right ammunition to shut-down adversaries ate 25 Km)
    9M96E of 60 Km of maximum range
    9M96E2 of 120 Km of maximum range

    This is a mix of ammunition in good position to replace the Buk, which ammunition goes from 25 to 70 Km of maximum ranges. But is not enough to replace all the S-300 variants.

    Also very important. the S-350 missiles are smaller than the Buk missiles.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:13 am

    9M100 of 40 Km of maximum range (so the S-350 has the right ammunition to shut-down adversaries ate 25 Km)
    9M96E of 60 Km of maximum range
    9M96E2 of 120 Km of maximum range

    This is a mix of ammunition in good position to replace the Buk, which ammunition goes from 25 to 70 Km of maximum ranges. But is not enough to replace all the S-300 variants.

    Also very important. the S-350 missiles are smaller than the Buk missiles.

    The S-350 is the reduced size missiles that were part of the S-400 system and were intended to maximise the ability of an S-400 battery to protect itself from direct attack with more than 4 missiles per TEL.

    What has ended up happening is that they have seen a niche gap in the Air Force and Aerospace Defence force Missile range that does not exist in the Army missile family.

    The S-350 replaces the shorter range S-300s but also the short range TOR and Pantsir systems that defended them from air attack.

    For targets in the medium range they don't need enormous missiles like those on the S-300 and S-400 systems, so they went with the S-400 missiles 9M96 in the larger and smaller model that can be carried in much greater numbers.

    The added the 9M100 which is supposed to have a range of about 15-20km as an on board replacement for TOR and Pantsir so an S-350 battery can operate on its own and deal with saturation attacks. It could also provide serious support to an S-400 or S-500 battery.

    The S-350 does not need to replace all S-300 missiles... the longer ranged S-300 (ie 200km and 250km range) models will be replaced by S-400.

    S-350 has smaller lighter cheaper missiles that cover medium to short range that can replace old model S-300 systems one for one.

    The upgraded S-300 systems with much longer range can be replaced with the much more expensive but also even greater ranged S-400.

    S-500 is entering service but it replaces nothing because nothing before it had the same performance in a mobile package.

    The Russian systems are just getting better.

    S-350 is not replacing BUK.... S-400 is not even replacing S-300V4... the army don't need Air Force and Aerospace Defence systems.

    The Navy is getting Redut (S-350) and will get S-500 on its capital ships. A good question is whether they will get S-400 to replace their S-300F systems.

    Their S-300F are related to the air force S-300P systems and not the Army S-300V systems which are totally different... So I suspect they will continue to use the Air Force and Aerospace Defence Force variants instead of the Army systems.


    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:02 am

    This kind of answers GarryB show how you have not really a technologically formed mind.

    First, there is nothing new in the S-350 as military concept. Nothing. The SA-11/17 would have been perfectly doing the work in this "new niche" you are talking about, used in packs of 12 like the S-350 first proposal.

    And more important still, to make a real and technically well justified valoration of the potential of the S-350 system it is necessary to look at the technical limits of the system. Only by this way it is possible to analyze its real potential.

    Can the S-350 have variants for different purposes of those commented in your history?
    Yes. Of course, the real potential of the S-350 system is fairly bigger than what you said. Even, if considered of interest, it would be possible to create Surface-Surface ammunition (missiles) for the S-350, always inside of the limits of the system. And this only means physical limits.

    Can you say where is necessary to look to find the technical limits of this and others air defense systems?


    Can you say which are the key variables that define one air defense system?


    The lack of a right answer to these questions leads to mistakes. The S-350 can be perfectly used in the new land and sea platforms in the right amounts for every case. Very likely, even in the BMD-4M, which lenght is bigger than the length of the S-350 ammunition (missiles), not in packs of 12, but maybe in packs of 4 or less. Also, the S-350 can expand significantly its range of ammunition (missiles) with a good number of new different variants for different purposes, including all the purposes for which the Buk missile variants are used today.

    To see only the longest range S-300 replaced by S-400 is a dream of the US and partners. Well not realistic. The S-300 has been taking the role of long range air defense. The number of S-300 answers to the analysis of the needs of long range air defenses. And this is just the purpose of the S-400, the S-500 and the A-235. If the "long range" designation is taking now a new dimension in terms of Km, really matters not. Better for Russia. If the oldest S-300 had lower range means not that higher range was unnecessary, then makes not sense to replace 50 Km missile by 50 Km missile. This will not happen.

    Finally, a mobile air defense reserve must be created in Russia, then the replaced systems in active service will remain in the reserve. The weakest reserve of the Russian land forces is just on air defense. It means high production (in relative terms) in the following years, including a good number on the armata platform, but without total decommissions.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:58 am

    If the S-350 is replacing the Buk, then why does there exist the Buk-M3... why continue to develop a system that is going to be replaced?

    that would be a serious waste of money and time.

    The fact is that there are enormous numbers of S-300s that were in service.... they started building them in the late 1970s and made a lot of them.

    They are not going to be able to make enough S-400s to replace every S-300 missile for missile.

    The S-350 uses the smaller lighter "numbers" missile developed for the S400 system but it is going to be deployed as a separate system with something like 12 launch tubes per TEL.

    This means they can produce the S-350 to replace the old model S-300s at a rate of 3-4 to one, so for every old S-300 missile they will have 3-4 new S-350s to replace them.

    They are continuing to develop and produce the BUK because the Russian Army still wants it... it fits in with the other BUK batteries they already have in service, and the transport vehicle has the level of mobility they require to allow it to operate with armour.


    _________________
    “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
    Isos

    Posts : 824
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Isos on Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:33 pm

    Radars of s-350 are much more advanced than those of buk also. They see further and better. Buk won t be as good as s350 against small target and 5th generation fighters.

    Max range of missiles are not really indicative. You won't shoot at max range at every target. The 70km for buk M3 will be in reality 50-55km while the 120km of s-350 will be 80-90 which is a big difference between the two systems and can't be compared.

    T-47

    Posts : 207
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  T-47 on Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:04 pm

    Off Topic Off Topic Off Topic Off Topic

    S-350 belongs to another thread
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:33 am

    GarryB wrote:If the S-350 is replacing the Buk, then why does there exist the Buk-M3... why continue to develop a system that is going to be replaced?

    that would be a serious waste of money and time.

    This would be like to say:

    If the T-14 is replacing the T-72, then why does there exist the T-72B3M... why continue to develop a system that is going to be replaced?

    that would be a serious waste of money and time.

    Makes not sense.

    The S-350, like the 125mm weapon, is likely to be introduced in the new platforms, but older platforms will remain, and need upgrades. Said it, is also safe enough to say that you will not see systems of the XX century mounted in the new platforms.



    GarryB wrote:The fact is that there are enormous numbers of S-300s that were in service.... they started building them in the late 1970s and made a lot of them.

    They are not going to be able to make enough S-400s to replace every S-300 missile for missile.

    The S-350 uses the smaller lighter "numbers" missile developed for the S400 system but it is going to be deployed as a separate system with something like 12 launch tubes per TEL.

    This means they can produce the S-350 to replace the old model S-300s at a rate of 3-4 to one, so for every old S-300 missile they will have 3-4 new S-350s to replace them.

    They are continuing to develop and produce the BUK because the Russian Army still wants it... it fits in with the other BUK batteries they already have in service, and the transport vehicle has the level of mobility they require to allow it to operate with armour.

    Russia has the number of S-300 that considered necessary to have, not only at the time of the Soviet Union, also now. Do you think Russia has too much S-300? Russia does not think it, neither of other systems, taking into account that there almost 0 reserve of mobile air defense systems. This is not a realistic model for the air defense replacement in Russia.

    First is necessary to note that the S-400 has been introduced until now without retirement of S-300, and this can continue years still, even decades. The S-400 and the rest of new systems will be produced in important numbers. Be sure of that. If the US plays the card of the Air Force, Russia plays the card of the Air Defense. And this will not change.

    About replacements, we will see when Russia begins to send some mobile air defense systems to the reserve. And then there is a good number of systems less capable than the S-300 that will go first (with the SA-13 looking first in line). For it is good to check the list posted some comments ago:

    this is the current range breakdown (taking maximum ranges) from higher to lower range:

    Over 1000 Km
    A-235

    500 to 1000  Km
    SA-?? S-500

    200 to 500 Km
    SA-21 S-400
    A-135 (silo based)
    SA-5 S-200 (towed)
    SA-10/12/20/23 S-300

    50 to 200 Km
    SA-?? S-350
    SA-11-17 Buk

    Manpad maximum range to 50 Km
    SA-4 Krug
    SA-2 S-75 (towed)
    SA-3 S-125 (towed)
    SA-6 Kub
    SA-22 Pantsir
    SA-15 Tor
    SA-8 Osa
    SA-19 2S6 Tunguska

    Manpads range
    SA-13
    SA-9

    At this point we only can talk about the S-400 as replacement of the S-300 at production level or more exactly at procurement level (because some system can remain in production to export). The same with the other new systems: Pantsir, S-350, S-500 and A-235. Only will replace the previous most advanced systems at the procurement level. The orders will move to the new systems, but for it, the new platforms must be ready, this is not an inmediate change.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:01 am

    An Army division has two types of AD vehicle operating with it.... gun and missile, is one type and the other is missile only.

    In addition every BMP-2 platoon has one vehicle with a grip stock and missiles for a MANPADs weapon for air defence.

    Currently the gun and missile system used to be the SA-9/ or SA-13 and Shilka but now is the Tunguska which combines the performance of both systems in one vehicle.

    For a future Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang based vehicle it s likely they will go for Pantsir missiles and a 57mm gun for the gun/missile vehicle on an armata/kurganets/boomerang chassis.

    For the lighter vehicles including Typhoon they might have SOSNA-R adn a 30mm cannon to reduce weight. (SOSNA-R is a high supersonic weapon that uses laser beam riding guidance and has a range of 10km)

    The Missile only system was OSA (SA-Cool, but was replaced by TOR and likely will be replaced with an Armata/kurganets/boomerang variant with TOR missiles on it.

    Buk operates at a higher level and so would not be restricted to a particular chassis... it operates further behind the front with its own logistics train so there is little advantage to fitting them to armata or kurganets or boomerang chassis.

    The S-350, like the 125mm weapon, is likely to be introduced in the new platforms, but older platforms will remain, and need upgrades. Said it, is also safe enough to say that you will not see systems of the XX century mounted in the new platforms.

    Have said it before and will say it again... the S-350 is an Air Force and Aerospace Defence Force system and just like the S-300P (Air Force) and S-300F (Navy) missiles will not be used by the Army (which used and uses the S-300V), the S-350 will not be used by the Army as it already has the BUK-M3 for medium range use and S-300V4 for long range use.... there is not gap of a retiring system for the S-350 to replace.


    Russia has the number of S-300 that considered necessary to have, not only at the time of the Soviet Union, also now. Do you think Russia has too much S-300? Russia does not think it, neither of other systems, taking into account that there almost 0 reserve of mobile air defense systems. This is not a realistic model for the air defense replacement in Russia.

    The S-300 are being retired because of their age and the S-400 is not being produced and can't be produced at the rate the S-300s are being retired at.

    The s-350 offers a smaller lighter cheaper missile that can be produced in large numbers rather quicker than the big heavy S-400 missiles can be produced.

    First is necessary to note that the S-400 has been introduced until now without retirement of S-300, and this can continue years still, even decades.

    So you are saying no S-300 systems have been retired?

    Plenty of S-300s have been retired, plenty more have been upgraded.... even more have been upgraded and given to allies...

    The S-400 and the rest of new systems will be produced in important numbers. Be sure of that. If the US plays the card of the Air Force, Russia plays the card of the Air Defense. And this will not change.

    The Soviets and Russians have always had more SAMs than the rest of the world combined. They have a similar attitude to Anti Tank weapons with their widely deployed RPGs and ATGMs.

    At this point we only can talk about the S-400 as replacement of the S-300 at production level or more exactly at procurement level (because some system can remain in production to export).

    That would not be relevant to this thread, which is about the Armata vehicle family.

    The same with the other new systems: Pantsir, S-350, S-500 and A-235.

    The only system you mention there that is relevant to this thread is the Pantsir, which is likely to be mounted on an Armata chassis to operate with an Armata division.



    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  eehnie on Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:17 pm

    I expect both the Pantsir and the S-350 to be relevant for this topic, as I expect both to be mounted in the Armata platform.

    Others (you concretely GarryB) introduced in the discussion systems defined as long range air defense (like the S-300). Others said that systems defined like long range air defense systems (like the S-300) will be replaced by systems defined as medium range air defense (like the S-350).

    About the retirement of the S-300 I only will say that the current fleet of SA-10/12/20/23 in the Russian Armed Forces is a 97.18% of the fleet of the Soviet Union in 1991 (of which some units go to Belarus and Ukraine). It has not been a reduction despite the introduction of the S-400.

    T-47

    Posts : 207
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  T-47 on Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:36 pm

    Don't evade so much. You didn't keep the discussion on mounting Armata. When Garry started it, you should've reply in the other thread. But anyways I'm not a mod here. So I just notified....

    Azi

    Posts : 122
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Azi on Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:09 am

    eehnie wrote:I expect both the Pantsir and the S-350 to be relevant for this topic, as I expect both to be mounted in the Armata platform.

    Others (you concretely GarryB) introduced in the discussion systems defined as long range air defense (like the S-300). Others said that systems defined like long range air defense systems (like the S-300) will be replaced by systems defined as medium range air defense (like the S-350).

    About the retirement of the S-300 I only will say that the current fleet of SA-10/12/20/23 in the Russian Armed Forces is a 97.18% of the fleet of the Soviet Union in 1991 (of which some units go to Belarus and Ukraine). It has not been a reduction despite the introduction of the S-400.
    Ok...wait, wait, wait! I Have a great idea! Why not putting a Nudol missile on a Armata??? So you have the best tank in world combined with the ability to intercept ICBM. lol!

    Armata is a heavy frontline platform! Armata based AD system would only make sense for a replacement of Tor, Shilka etc. The Buk platform is NOT heavy armoured!!! For a AD system like Buk mobility is more important than armour!

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:49 am