[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Werewolf wrote:
They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

I am not aware of such systems installed on any tanks, do you have specific information?

imma parrot what GarryB has been saying about the lasers for these beam riders being orders of magnitude weaker than those for the laser rangefinder - afterall its one way transmitting, no need to reflect back as is the case with laser rangefinders.

no, nothing, just inferred it from the T-90MS CGI video i have saved in my machine. even if there is no mode on the fcs for it (i think the standard practice against targets with suspected LWR equipment would be to lase nearby objects, which is not applicable to flying targets for obviuos reasons unless they are hovering), one could just adhoc a target height pixel counter and target height database comparator. actually impossibru, in order to autotrack the target must be lased first for a couple secs, then there is sudden abrupt movement changes and boom you have to restart an autotrack, so sorry my bad .

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Which one? Optronic database? There is no tank that could do that. There are systems in study for the AMX-56 with shape-factor IFF. They are trying to solve one issue with Optronic IFF, density. In most cases the optical/IR IFF will be difficult over 1K since the tank will show a shape, but not the actual density. Thales BMS PIDed 8/10 cardboards as real targets...it went to 9/10 with cars dressed up as tanks.

oh, is that so? bummer. maybe they weren't using the latest thermals coupled with image post processing- but then again more likely they did since they own the tech. in that case the only fallback would be good old height comparing, but good luck without an autotrack.

Cyberspec wrote:Regarding the Javelin, he talks about angles of approach and the shape of the turret but my Russian is poor and I can't really understand it properly (translators don't help). Perhaps some Russian member can translate properly.

On the side armour issue, I think he's talking about the area covered by dynamic protection...he also says enemy tanks would have a hard time penetrating the side armour in many scenarios....he believes the Armata armour protection will be superior to anything currently in service

Keep in mind these figures are estimates based on available info and visual observation, not official figures

Shaping could help but either way the Javelin uses a high-penetration HEAT round... The best bet would be using the APS, which could prevent it from even hitting the T-14 in the first place. 

That's what I figured... Around 700 mm RHAe on the reactive sections (more v. HEAT I'd assume) and 400/500 mm RHAe on the rear half (w/o reactive armor). It probably is the strongest side-armor as of right now, as most MBT's do not emphasis it very much. - Look at the A2 SEP...they knew the side was weak and glued on some sketchy *** ERA bricks to compensate.

Werewolf wrote:They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

mutantsushi wrote:

Werewolf wrote:They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

It won't trigger the LWR because the laser does not have to be as powerful.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

I am not aware of such systems installed on any tanks, do you have specific information?

imma parrot what GarryB has been saying about the lasers for these beam riders being orders of magnitude weaker than those for the laser rangefinder - afterall its one way transmitting, no need to reflect back as is the case with laser rangefinders.

no, nothing, just inferred it from the T-90MS CGI video i have saved in my machine. even if there is no mode on the fcs for it (i think the standard practice against targets with suspected LWR equipment would be to lase nearby objects, which is not applicable to flying targets for obviuos reasons unless they are hovering), one could just adhoc a target height pixel counter and target height database comparator. actually impossibru, in order to autotrack the target must be lased first for a couple secs, then there is sudden abrupt movement changes and boom you have to restart an autotrack, so sorry my bad .

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Which one? Optronic database? There is no tank that could do that. There are systems in study for the AMX-56 with shape-factor IFF. They are trying to solve one issue with Optronic IFF, density. In most cases the optical/IR IFF will be difficult over 1K since the tank will show a shape, but not the actual density. Thales BMS PIDed 8/10 cardboards as real targets...it went to 9/10 with cars dressed up as tanks.

oh, is that so? bummer. maybe they weren't using the latest thermals coupled with image post processing- but then again more likely they did since they own the tech. in that case the only fallback would be good old height comparing, but good luck without an autotrack.

On the other side, what are the chances you'd take such a system on the Battlefield and shoot up what ever target shows up. Personally I'd want such a system even if it isn't fool proof at long range.

Can some one tell me why does Armata carry externally exposed fuel tank as shown in figure 1

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/469/51469/p1633366.jpg

Where you think the fuel cells are here?

There is no other way to carry fuel, and in some cases fuel cells can work as "el cheapo" spaced armour.

I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

Fuel cells don't explode from own fuel (diesel) they have the same FOAM aluminium+whatever material that is like the fuel tanks on attack helicopters or Su-25, they are self sealing and surpressing explosions.

http://www.niistali.ru/products/nauka/protection/fire_and_blast_safety/

INCREASE FIRE AND EXPLOSION Wept

Provided by:

the use of flammable-explosion safe fuel tanks;
the use of flame resistent fuel tanks with a foam filler to suffocate flames of type (SMOG and IAD) for the protection of the fire nodes.

Too much Mad Max? Check diesel properties and conditions it needs to explode But then again almost empty diesel tanks can explode because of diesel gas. But that kind of explosion wouldn't rip Your ears off.

In that case an entire passive targeting system via IRST/TIS image processor is necessary, because as soon you aim your gun at the helicopter the crew will be alerted by LWR and try to get low to break the LOS.

The energy in the laser beam riding missiles laser beam is so weak it will likely not set off most LWR.

Bear in mind that a laser range finder has a much much more powerful beam... the energy from a laser range finding system is such that if an object next to the target is lased that the reflected energy from the laser spot on the helo next to the target is comparable to the energy of the beam riders laser.

This means that laser reflections will set off a LWR including laser reflections from the Helos own LRF... so LWR are often set to ignore less powerful signals... meaning often beam riders lasers are ignored.

the alternative is that any laser reflection will set off the LWR so the crew will likely start ignoring it because any laser will set it off including the helicopters own laser rangefinder.

Which one? Optronic database? There is no tank that could do that. There are systems in study for the AMX-56 with shape-factor IFF. They are trying to solve one issue with Optronic IFF, density. In most cases the optical/IR IFF will be difficult over 1K since the tank will show a shape, but not the actual density. Thales BMS PIDed 8/10 cardboards as real targets...it went to 9/10 with cars dressed up as tanks.

The only missiles I have read about with onboard databases of targets signatures are the Brimstone MMW radar guided missile which has an onboard database of 3D MMW radar signatures of targets so detected targets can be identified, and the proposed Morfei IIR guided missile with a 3D database of IR images that can be used to ID targets.

I remember in the 1980s the Europeans were developing artificial intelligence to try to teach an AI computer system to detect tanks.

They got it to the point where 97% of the time it was right in lab tests and then they had field trials... and it was pathetic... its accuracy was aweful.

Turns out they fed it with photos with tanks and photos without tanks and it tried to guess. they told it whether it was right or not and it used its own method of working out why... it was a black box system so you couldn't just generate rules.

Anyway after a few years of trying to work out what was wrong it was eventually worked out that the sample photos with tanks in them were taken on sunny days.

they thought they were training the computer to detect the presence or absence of tanks, but in actual fact what they trained it to do was detect a sunny day from a dark gray gloomy day...  

hehehe... true story...  

actually impossibru, in order to autotrack the target must be lased first for a couple secs, then there is sudden abrupt movement changes and boom you have to restart an autotrack, so sorry my bad

Not true. To autotrack a target you don't need to know its range... it is a video processing feature that would work on the moon or the sun if you want... you don't need to know the range to either to track their movements.

Equally you don't need to know the range to the target... you can look at where the target is and turn 45 degrees and lase something on the ground a similar distance away to get a rough estimate... if it is 6km away then you know your gun launched missile will reach as it can hit targets at 8km so you turn your turret round and place the crosshair on the target and "lock it"... ie tell the autotracker to follow the target... load the round and fire... the guidance system normally raises the beam to a couple of metres above the target so your missile will fly a few metres high and wont fly into fences of trees etc... the ballistics computer has a rough idea of range and knows the flight performance of the missile... so knowing the target is about 6km away after x number of seconds where the missile will have flown 5km the guidance system will automatically drop the laser down to centre it on the target and the missile will sense the beam drop several metres and it will descend back into the centre of the beam and follow it to hit the target.

The missile will still be covering several hundred metres per second so the pilot wont see it until it is way too late... an end on GLATGM is 125mm across... if you can see that 200m away then you are a better man than I... and one second later it is punching through your cockpit windscreen... you will see that but you wont have time to do anything about it...

Dodging bullets is Hollywood BS.

During a real war if a pilot sees an SA-2 launch they might be able to start a manouver that the missile can't follow so you dodge the missile... but there is a difference between a telephone pole sized missile with an enormous smoke trail behind it and a missile the size of a football with no rocket motor and no smoke coming up from the ground with ground clutter to hide in.

This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

Yes... having the LWR so sensitive that they are set off by beam riding lasers will simply result in hundreds or thousands of false alarms... which will likely lead to the being turned off.

mutantsushi wrote:

Werewolf wrote:They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

Somewhere there were tests about LBR tests against LWR with very low probability of alerting, but have to dig up that info to verify, but in theory yes LBR shouldn't set off LWR untill it is to late for the target where the Laser Beam is narrowed to precisely guide the missile into its target.

Not true. To autotrack a target you don't need to know its range... it is a video processing feature that would work on the moon or the sun if you want... you don't need to know the range to either to track their movements.

Equally you don't need to know the range to the target... you can look at where the target is and turn 45 degrees and lase something on the ground a similar distance away to get a rough estimate... if it is 6km away then you know your gun launched missile will reach as it can hit targets at 8km so you turn your turret round and place the crosshair on the target and "lock it"... ie tell the autotracker to follow the target... load the round and fire... the guidance system normally raises the beam to a couple of metres above the target so your missile will fly a few metres high and wont fly into fences of trees etc... the ballistics computer has a rough idea of range and knows the flight performance of the missile... so knowing the target is about 6km away after x number of seconds where the missile will have flown 5km the guidance system will automatically drop the laser down to centre it on the target and the missile will sense the beam drop several metres and it will descend back into the centre of the beam and follow it to hit the target.

The missile will still be covering several hundred metres per second so the pilot wont see it until it is way too late... an end on GLATGM is 125mm across... if you can see that 200m away then you are a better man than I... and one second later it is punching through your cockpit windscreen... you will see that but you wont have time to do anything about it...

Dodging bullets is Hollywood BS.

During a real war if a pilot sees an SA-2 launch they might be able to start a manouver that the missile can't follow so you dodge the missile... but there is a difference between a telephone pole sized missile with an enormous smoke trail behind it and a missile the size of a football with no rocket motor and no smoke coming up from the ground with ground clutter to hide in.

+1

Exactly how i did in Arma 3 always keep Laser Rangefinder off, sneak up laze a target on same level as your enemy tank or LAV and turn off lazer and then just shoot HE (mobility kill) or direct kill if it is LAV and then shred it to pieces by correctin after each round by eye figure.

 

   This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
   A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

Yes... having the LWR so sensitive that they are set off by beam riding lasers will simply result in hundreds or thousands of false alarms... which will likely lead to the being turned off.

GarryB wrote:
Not true. To autotrack a target you don't need to know its range... it is a video processing feature that would work on the moon or the sun if you want... you don't need to know the range to either to track their movements.

well, i thought so too - its only prolly limitation of current system and how they made it work, my mistake again(damn, cant get a break these days- must be a quota on mistakes i have to fulfill, school's not doing it do here we are ). the one ive read about was for the French FCS, btw, and curiously it appears to not be fully auto- more like just adjusts fine aim.

Regular wrote:Too much Mad Max? Check diesel properties and conditions it needs to explode But then again almost empty diesel tanks can explode because of diesel gas. But that kind of explosion wouldn't rip Your ears off.

There's a common misconception about flammable liquids. The liquids themselves aren't responsible for the incendiary effect, it's the fumes that are explosive, and that's largely because the oxygen in the air is a highly flammable accelerant. For all intensive purposes the flammable fumes would be inert in a oxygen deprived environment.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Murican fanbouys review T-14 Armata - forums.kindergarten.com  

Just in case ex-mp.net guys felt mp.net was just one insane shithole, you gotta see these frogs living in their own shit. Except for a few unbiased and matured posters who put across things objectively, rest are a bunch of simply brainless murican fanbouys & biased educated fools for whom there is only murican way of life.
I would like to see that d_berwal guy in this forum. He is the only person in that forum with real knowledge on the subject. I dont know how Austin is surviving on that forum with a shitload of biased and dumb moderators and crew for whom anything Russian is untouchable.

Dima wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Murican fanbouys review T-14 Armata - forums.kindergarten.com  

Just in case ex-mp.net guys felt mp.net was just one insane shithole, you gotta see these frogs living in their own shit. Except for a few unbiased and matured posters who put across things objectively, rest are a bunch of simply brainless murican fanbouys & biased educated fools for whom there is only murican way of life.
I would like to see that d_berwal guy in this forum. He is the only person in that forum with real knowledge on the subject. I dont know how Austin is surviving on that forum with a shitload of biased and dumb moderators and crew for whom anything Russian is untouchable.

This is almost conditioning or Pawlow reflex, whenever i read "Bharat Rakshak" i have to eye roll, that is truelly an even more ridiculous forum than f-16 or mp net together.

Werewolf wrote:This is almost conditioning or Pawlow reflex, whenever i read "Bharat Rakshak" i have to eye roll, that is truelly an even more ridiculous forum than f-16 or mp net together.

+1

GarryB wrote:Javelin uses a single HEAT warhead with 750mm penetration... a decent ERA could halve that and hitting at a bad angle could further reduce it to levels that could be survivable...

Exactly, moreover on the letality of those kind of ATGM against reference threat of the same " generation" exist an huge gap between common immaginary (influenced by engagement against 70/80 years MBTs ,more than 90% of the times against motionless targets from side of rear projection) and reality.


To realize is more than sufficient to merely read the requirements for lethality asked by US Department of the Army for Close Combat Missile System - Medium (CCMS-M) Increment II Missile , alias Javelin II

THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE WOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE BUT MUST INTERFACE WITH THE JAVELIN BLOCK O AND BLOCK I COMMAND LAUNCH UNITS (CLUS). JAVELIN MISSILE AND CLU (BLOCK O AND BLOCK I) INTERFACE CONTROL DRAWINGS AND PE! RFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST THROUGH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY CONTACTING KIM FLOYD (KIM.FLOYD@US.ARMY.MIL). THESE INTERFACE CONTROL DRAWINGS AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESPONDING TO THIS RFI. ANY OTHER USE IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

FOLLOWING ARE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE AS AN UPGRADE TO CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE SYSTEM: PORTABILITY-CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL BE A MAN-PPRTABLE SYSTEM. THE BLOCK O AND BLOCK I CLU WEIGH APPROXIMATELY 15 POUNDS. THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II ROUND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 POUNDS, WITH A DESIRED WEIGHT OF 20 POUNDS OR LESS. IMPROVED COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS (LETHALITY). CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL ACHIEVE A MOBILITY OR FIREPOWER KILL AGAINST T-90 PIP 1 TANK CAST TURRET WITH AND WITHOUT APPLIQUE ARMOR AND ALSO PROVIDE INCAPACITATING OR LETHAL EFFECTS AGAINST LIGHT/SOFT VEHICLES, PERSONNEL IN OPEN AREAS, PERSONNEL WITHIN STRUCTURES OR STANDARD EARTH AND TIMBER BUNKERS.[/b] LETHALITY. CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE WILL INCREASE PROBABILITY OF HIT (PH) ON SMALL TARGETS, SUCH AS NATO BUNKER APERTURES BEYOND 1200M, WHEN COMPARED TO CURRENT FIRE AND FORGET ENGAGEMENTS.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=f4759d477ceea3d7c4dc1dffcdaf5d16

Enough said



About the old question of laser beam riding missiles triggering or not triggering LWRs, i want to repeat for the umpteenth time that the question is not only in the level of power required for the beam of a laser beam riding ATGM (up to two order of magnitude lower than classical SALH , but much more important, in the fact that beam riding missile do not need to be pointed to a scattering target AT ALL (as happen for SALH ) .

Usually a well trained operator , for not say practically ANY new generation automatic target tracking system for those kind of missile like that present the Kornet-EM/AM , point the laser beam 15-20 meter above ,to the right or to the left of the intended target and collimate the angle of incidence with it only in the last second of the engagements ,leaving to the target no more than 3-4 seconds (and even much less in the istance of robotic automatic target tracking of latest production); for example ,an AH-64-E no more than 2-3 meters above LOS of a close hill, in the action to acquire some targets with its AN/APG-78 Longbow, will receive no warning from its LWR of a beam rider missile coming toward it except for a pair of second before the detonation on its rotors when the laser beam is collimated in a vector of collision with the helicopter.

Werewolf wrote:

Dima wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Murican fanbouys review T-14 Armata - forums.kindergarten.com  

Just in case ex-mp.net guys felt mp.net was just one insane shithole, you gotta see these frogs living in their own shit. Except for a few unbiased and matured posters who put across things objectively, rest are a bunch of simply brainless murican fanbouys & biased educated fools for whom there is only murican way of life.
I would like to see that d_berwal guy in this forum. He is the only person in that forum with real knowledge on the subject. I dont know how Austin is surviving on that forum with a shitload of biased and dumb moderators and crew for whom anything Russian is untouchable.

This is almost conditioning or Pawlow reflex, whenever i read "Bharat Rakshak" i have to eye roll, that is truelly an even more ridiculous forum than f-16 or mp net together.

The most virulent are the vicarious achievers. This mental disease afflicts Ukraine as well. Basically an inadequacy syndrome.

On this edition of MTV Cribs: Armata APC/IFV

Dima wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Murican fanbouys review T-14 Armata - forums.kindergarten.com  

Just in case ex-mp.net guys felt mp.net was just one insane shithole, you gotta see these frogs living in their own shit. Except for a few unbiased and matured posters who put across things objectively, rest are a bunch of simply brainless murican fanbouys & biased educated fools for whom there is only murican way of life.
I would like to see that d_berwal guy in this forum. He is the only person in that forum with real knowledge on the subject. I dont know how Austin is surviving on that forum with a shitload of biased and dumb moderators and crew for whom anything Russian is untouchable.

Unfortunately Bharat Rakshak has become American Rakshak forum with many Umrica fanboys with with little knowledge , 10 years back it used to be a much better forum to discuss many technical issues with many knowledgeble people with more substance to discuss unfortunately they all left.

I am most there to discuss Economic Issue which fortunately is filled with knowledgeble people link below

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6655&start=1960

T-14 3D model : http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-russian-tank-t-14-armata/927940

Protecting that rear door will be a bitch.

magnumcromagnon wrote:On this edition of MTV Cribs: Armata APC/IFV

Looks pretty thin :/
I was expecting something like that