Russian Tanks ERA and APS

Time for me to ask about tank armor.... on the internet.

Oh well

The turret armor on the T-90A does not seem to be any less thick than on say the leopard 2a4 or the abrams exept right next to the mantlet where there is only around 400-450mm of RHA.

Anyway I don't see how the T-90As frontal turret offers only 550mm of RHAE if the abrams offers 800.

I know Russian armor penetration and likely prtection measurment standars are higher than eaverone eleses but to such a degree would be just rediculous.

Also look at this image for the T-90As turret to offer only a pathetic 550mm of RHAE the composite armor would have to be less effective than seel.

You don´t get the two different concepts. The west scaps on new armor directly to the turret. Russia adds ERA. The result is the same.

No I get that Uralvagonzavod is too lazy to make armor and likes to pretend that bolting on NII stali products counts as armor and no as an additional layer of defence. And that the west is too stupid to understand the benefit countermeasures.

What I am saying is that the estimates for the T-90As turret are total bullshit.

The only section of the turret front that would offer around 550-600mm of RHAE would be the part right next to the mantlet albeit there is a small 425mm thick RHA section.

Anyway the turret armor would be more like 600-750 on the flat part in the middle and 850-900mm on the sloped side parts that don't protect anything when facing head on. (That is assuming Russian composite armor is better than RHA.)

Anyway great work Ural put all of your armor where it is least needed. <(I know it is to alow for a wider arc of protection but most enemies will shoot at you from the font so making that a weakpoint is rather silly)

Can a modern day APS mounted on a Tank, IFV intercept a volley of RPGs and ATGMs fired towards the Tank ?

In case a tank is surrounded from all sides and a number of RPGs, especially rocket propelled grenade weapons like RPG and ATGMs like Kornet-M, Javelin are fired towards it,  will the Tank's APS be able to intercept all the incoming rockets and missiles ?

Some APS like the Israeli Trench Coat consists of a 360-degree radar that detects all threats and launches 17 projectiles, of which one should strike the incoming missile/rocket.

The purpose of an APS system is to protect a tank from an attack... it is not intended to make the tank invincible to all missiles and allow it to drive on its own into enemy territory and just shoot everything up with impunity.

You could probably organise a few groups of people with RPGs to fire together... it would be rather tricky to organise so they all fire at once and they wont be standing side by side they will likely be at different ranges and from different angles other wise the same APS munition that shoots down one incoming threat could shoot down them all because they will all come in together.

Old APS systems could only handle one threat at a time and then reset, but with a modern digital system with MMW radar sensors and optical sensors around the tank it would not be that far fetched for newer APS systems to intercept multiple threats in real time.

The situation you are suggesting is most likely to occur in an ambush and it really all depends on the planning for that ambush and the quality of the RPGs and ATGMs being used... I mean if they include land mines to prevent the vehicle from going off road to escape and they have enough rockets and the people using them don't lose their bottle and run away then I would say many tanks would be vulnerable... having said that... a T-14 with ERA and APS and any other defensive systems including audio systems that are detecting nearby enemies and UAVs looking for enemy troops... even if it is totally immobilised could start calling in artillery fire and use its machine guns to keep fighting from inside its armoured capsule till assistance arrives... but odds are it would not have been operating alone anyway.

With a panoramic view plus UAV support showing a god view of the ground around them launching an ambush could become rather tricky... I would suspect the use of rather large IEDs would be the preferred method because when planning an ambush you really wont have a clue as to what vehicles you will catch.

Needless to say the APS is supposed to stop the first few attacks... remember on something like a T-14 it could probably ignore many attacks from the front just assuming the armour and ERA will stop it anyway... the vehicle commander should have realised it was an ambush and taken some action to get out of there... while firing on anything that pops its head up.

It takes real balls to stand up in front of a tank to fire a missile... even more so in this day and age when all round thermal camera coverage means you probably will be spotted... the commanders cuppola on the T-14 has a machine gun attached to help deal with that sort of problem... and having a tethered UAV able to fly 50-100m above the tank giving it an unprecedented view of the terrain around the tank an ambush will be harder and harder to achieve.

We also know they have operational vehicles that can set off IEDS using microwaves... it is only a matter of time before that is developed into a much smaller device that every tank carries...

GarryB wrote: You could probably organise a few groups of people with RPGs to fire together... it would be rather tricky to organise so they all fire at once and they wont be standing side by side they will likely be at different ranges and from different angles other wise the same APS munition that shoots down one incoming threat could shoot down them all because they will all come in together.

But during the Israel- Egypt war, Iran-Iraq war and the Chechen war that's exactly what was done. A number of individuals armed with ATGMs, RPGs firing simultaneously at the tank and in the process destroying/ incapacitating it.

GarryB wrote: a T-14 with ERA and APS and any other defensive systems including audio systems that are detecting nearby enemies and UAVs looking for enemy troops... even if it is totally immobilised could start calling in artillery fire and use its machine guns to keep fighting from inside its armoured capsule till assistance arrives... but odds are it would not have been operating alone anyway.

With a panoramic view plus UAV support showing a god view of the ground around them launching an ambush could become rather tricky... I would suspect the use of rather large IEDs would be the preferred method because when planning an ambush you really wont have a clue as to what vehicles you will catch.

But lack of endurance is a major factor for these small UAVs, isn't it ? So they won't be able to loiter for a long period of time.

Even a 360-degree augmented situational awareness systems (links below) might not help the tank to survive, because the externally mounted cameras ( that project the 360-degree view of an MBT’s surroundings onto the helmet-mounted displays (HMD) of its crew members ) might be hit by RPG and ATGMs

https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/HENSOLDT_2019/Products/Optronics/SETAS_Datasheet_v6_HENSOLDT.pdf

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/pdfs/produktpdfs/elektrooptischekomponenten/D100e0212_SAS.pdf

jhelb wrote:Can a modern day APS mounted on a Tank, IFV intercept a volley of RPGs and ATGMs fired towards the Tank ?

In case a tank is surrounded from all sides and a number of RPGs, especially rocket propelled grenade weapons like RPG and ATGMs like Kornet-M, Javelin are fired towards it,  will the Tank's APS be able to intercept all the incoming rockets and missiles ?

Some APS like the Israeli Trench Coat consists of a 360-degree radar that detects all threats and launches 17 projectiles, of which one should strike the incoming missile/rocket.

Very unlikely. The APS needs to fire at the good time to intercept the incoming threat.

No volley will come at the same time so the aps will intercept the first one but the rest will go through. Reaction time of APS is not 0.

Russian Kornet EM has the ability to fire two kornet at the same target with the second one being fired few milli seconds after the first so that it arrive wheb the APS is dealing with the first round.

But during the Israel- Egypt war, Iran-Iraq war and the Chechen war that's exactly what was done. A number of individuals armed with ATGMs, RPGs firing simultaneously at the tank and in the process destroying/ incapacitating it.

Even without an APS system the Russian tanks in the second Chechen conflict survived those attacks... being hit multiple times... it was in the first chechen conflict when they were driven down streets that were barricaded and set up with RPGs on the roofs of buildings and in basements where the tank main armament couldn't angle to reach... take out the soft skinned vehicles like BMPs first and then you are left with tanks armed at best with roof mounted 12.7mm machine guns... hit the vehicles at the front and the rear and just continue to engage the rest until the crew panic and try to bolt or you get a penetration...

The solution is not APS or SHTORA... it is not drive in to built up areas like that with soft vehicles whose guns cannot elevate to hit people on upper floors or depress to hit people in basement positions... and certainly don't do it against an enemy that had conscription where they were taught to use all the same weapons you are using and know their weaknesses and using weapons vastly more powerful than those supplied to third world proxy forces...

But lack of endurance is a major factor for these small UAVs, isn't it ? So they won't be able to loiter for a long period of time.

The UAV to be used by T-14s is tethered... it is connected to the tank by a fine cable that will likely include a power cable and fibreoptic cable so that anything the UAV detects is delivered directly to that vehicle and that vehicle can continue to power that UAV all day... it can also command and communicate with teh UAV at enormous data rates without a digital data link that could be intercepted or jammed... though it probably will have a datalink if the tether is severed... but that datalink should also work with other UAVs in the area flying much higher. It should also be able to use ground based unmanned armoured vehicles that could set up a perimeter to help protect the tank... imagine a BMD sized vehicle with a 23mm 6 barrel gatling sitting in an overwatch position to hose down any area within 3km of the vehicle with 200 23mm cannon shells per second...

Even is fixed positions they could set up metal plates like targets on a firing range and if an incoming missile is detected they could be raised up to stop direct fire weapons... which means 90% of the current threats to a tank in service today.

Even a 360-degree augmented situational awareness systems (links below) might not help the tank to survive, because the externally mounted cameras ( that project the 360-degree view of an MBT’s surroundings onto the helmet-mounted displays (HMD) of its crew members ) might be hit by RPG and ATGMs

The glass blocks for tank periscopes often have replacements that can be replaced in the field... I would suggest that cameras on a vehicle will have backups that will work till they withdraw to a safe place for repair... but even if they don't... the other vehicles with that vehicle can provide additional cover and firepower to deal with the problem.

And of course the Russians are actually working on another solution... the BMPT... which is a vehicle with tank level armour intended to be used against infantry... including ATGM teams and snipers and MGs... firing weapons at a Russian tank in the near future is going to be a very dangerous occupation.

Of course having said that, nothing on the battlefield is totally safe... vehicles will be destroyed, and Russian soldiers will die... but a lot of rag heads are going to die first...

No volley will come at the same time so the aps will intercept the first one but the rest will go through. Reaction time of APS is not 0.

Well... you can't really say that... the new ARENA has lots of radar panels that might act independently... if there are three rockets coming in at the same time from each side and perhaps the rear... the most vulnerable and most likely directions of attack for RPGs... who is to say it can't use four radar arrays to scan 360 degrees and track three targets with three different radar arrays and launch three munitions to intercept the incoming threat... the interception is not rocket science... the munitions are launched at a fixed angle to a fixed height and spread fragments over a fairly wide arc down and outwards to intercept incoming threats... it is not like they are launching individual rifle calibre bullets to actually hit the incoming threat... it is more like they are setting off claymore mines to stop an infantry attack... they have a dozen claymore mines all set up to face different directions so an attack from three directions at once is not actually a big deal... and there is no reason why two rockets coming from the same direction half a second apart couldn't be intercepted by two munitions fired in the same direction half a second apart too...

It is not like the Israeli system where a turret needs to be pointed at the incoming threat... and electronics and radar technology has moved on in the 30 years since ARENA was developed.

RPG-31 also uses two rockets in a close volley to defeat Israeli APS systems... would they develop systems that can be defeated by their own weapons?

Chechnia showed they need to be able to fight their own weapons and tactics as well as American and western.

GarryB wrote:
And of course the Russians are actually working on another solution... the BMPT... which is a vehicle with tank level armour intended to be used against infantry... including ATGM teams and snipers and MGs... firing weapons at a Russian tank in the near future is going to be a very dangerous occupation.

During the Battle of Grozny (1994–95), it was evident that infantry fighting vehicles, like the BMP-2 (pictured), did not have sufficient protection for urban combat. Consequently, it took a severe beating.

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt.htm

Indeed, the BMP-2s were engaged first because their 30mm cannon could elevate and hit AT teams on roofs firing down on the vehicles, and their lighter armour meant they were often taken out rather quickly in an urban setting... also blocking the streets to make escape for surviving vehicles difficult or impossible... and they just picked them off one by one with RPG from above and SVD and PKM armed teams who shot anyone trying to escape their vehicles...

Result is the Armata vehicle family... not just a tank but also IFVs and APCs etc etc etc.

No matter what vehicle it is, urban warfare won't be good for it.

A guy with an rpg can pop up and fire at the vehicle in 3 seconds leaving no time to the crew to react even if they see him. And rpg will go through from the top or rear imobilizing the vehicle. Even a PKM will make terrible damages on the roof of many vehicles.

Isos wrote:And rpg will go through from the top or rear imobilizing the vehicle.

I believe that one of the requirements for the armata was that the roof of the crew capsule would have to be protected with composite armour that could withstand a PG7 warhead, in addition the both the frontal hull and turret rooves have ERA.

In chechnya the tanks were not properly supported and could easily be ambushed, in the near future Russia will have numerous teletanks like the Uran-9 to deal with troublesome neigbourhoods.

GarryB wrote:Result is the Armata vehicle family... not just a tank but also IFVs and APCs etc etc etc.

But Russia had heavy vehicle family during the war in Chechnya as well. T-90, BMP-3, BTR 90. What's the difference now ?

they BMP-3 and BTR-90 are not heavily armored by any stretch of the imagination and Russia did relatively well in the second chechen war due mainly to a few alterations to thier tactics.

No matter what vehicle it is, urban warfare won't be good for it.

Urban warfare is the the most difficult because enemy forces can be in the building next to you and you may not realise. Also the elevation provided by buildings and structures means instead of attacking your frontal armour or even side and rear armour, they can engage your top armour... which is almost always rather weaker than from any other angle except underneath...

A guy with an rpg can pop up and fire at the vehicle in 3 seconds leaving no time to the crew to react even if they see him.

Quite true but APS systems turned on should protect the vehicle even from attacks from above... simply because new ATGMs include top attack options because the top of vehicles is a weak point in terms of armour thickness.

First gen Soviet and Russian APS systems were not ideal for top attack weapons, but I would suggest modern systems will defeat top attack munitions too.

Even a PKM will make terrible damages on the roof of many vehicles.

Many light vehicles have tops as thin as 20mm so yes, even a PKM at short range with armour piercing rounds can be effective... and even against the heaviest vehicles it can damage equipment and optics and aerials.

With new vehicle families many of the lighter vehicles like APCs with remote weapon stations the ability to fire back is actually pretty good and if you break cover and fire a PKM at a column of armour in a street even leaning back in behind the sand bags might not save you if they have audio sensors that detected where your shots came from... after firing your burst at the tanks you might find a nearby T-15 detected your burst and returns fire with a burst of 3-4 57mm high velocity cannon shells... perhaps APHE rounds that penetrate in to your sandbags and blow the room you fired from to bits...

It is very dangerous for armour, but it can become rather dangerous for enemy forces too.

I believe that one of the requirements for the armata was that the roof of the crew capsule would have to be protected with composite armour that could withstand a PG7 warhead, in addition the both the frontal hull and turret rooves have ERA.

The heaviest armour is the frontal hull armour which makes up the crew capsule... all the heaviest armour is covering the crew from all angles. The weapons... including remote weapon stations are not as well armoured but are able to elevate to return fire even in built up areas...

In chechnya the tanks were not properly supported and could easily be ambushed, in the near future Russia will have numerous teletanks like the Uran-9 to deal with troublesome neigbourhoods.

In the second conflict in Chechnia they were less gungho... less willing to barge in to urban areas... They will have robot vehicles and UAVs but they will also likely use more fire power and also more precise weapons and equipment to ensure they kill more of the rebels rather than let them escape to fight another day.

But Russia had heavy vehicle family during the war in Chechnya as well. T-90, BMP-3, BTR 90. What's the difference now ?

AFAIK they have not had the BTR-90 in operational service, the BTR-80 vehicles and BMP-1.-2, and -3 vehicles don't have especially strong upper armour... in fact they could probably be penetrated with 14.5mm HMG fire from above... like most western IFV and APC equivalents.

In combat the IFV and APCs were taken out first because their main guns could elevate and fire back at the enemy teams in the buildings... once they had been dealt with they blocked the exit for the tanks whose main guns elevate to less than 30 degrees, so they could take their time to destroy those.

A new Armata unit however means all the vehicles have MBT level armour protection so they will be much harder nuts to crack... and all will have APS systems and other equipment to make them more difficult to deal with. They will also have a range of high elevation weapons to return fire with, which makes the job of the ambusher much more dangerous... they could even use onboard lasers to mark the buildings around them and call in an artillery strike...

they BMP-3 and BTR-90 are not heavily armored by any stretch of the imagination and Russia did relatively well in the second chechen war due mainly to a few alterations to thier tactics.

BTR-90s are unlikely to ever enter Russian service, while the BTR-82s are possibly armoured to stop 14.5mm HMG from the front and possibly 12.7mm from the sides and rear, while BMP-3 will probably stop 30mm cannon from the front from 500m range or more and probably 14.5mm from the sides and rear outside of 500m too, but from above they are vulnerable like pretty much all APCs and IFVs.

In urban fighting it is the infantry that does the work and armour provides mobile fire power... direct fire artillery.

Not russian but ukrainian APS probably based on sobiet works. Nice video of Zaslon aps intercepting rickets and even apfsds at then end. I doubted an aps could do that but I tryst russian when they say afghanit intercepted apfsds in tests.

It's not bad against arab made rpg-7 but as we see in modern conflicts, guerillas have access to modern ATGM and can adapt their tactics by analyzing enemy stuff on the net as everything is pictured and shared.

This a western way of doing things as they look for undestructible stuff and immortal soldiers. That only increase the weight and the price at the end with no real benefits.

Drozd-2




Applied to 30 tube TOS-1


Apparently they had plans to apply Drozd-2 to lightly armored vehicles like flatbed transport trucks

Interesting, have not seen the Drozd launcher on the TOS-1, but the Drozd was tested on Naval Infantry T-55Ms... the first models had big rockets but didn't offer complete 360 degree coverage. The later Drozd-2 had smaller rockets in larger numbers giving full coverage... I seem to remember adverts for it in the mid 1990s... it is certainly not a new system.... but there was no money so they didn't buy it. Same problem with ARENA... DROZD had rather good performance in Afghanistan in the 1980s... but there was no money.

They have to use it. Atgm are too dangerous for any vehicle and they are used by even the poorest guerillas.

I like the fact that they don't just think about tanks which at least have a frontal protection that can protect them.

Other vehicles are just as needed and not really cheap.

If you think about price, it should be cheaper than adding 20 tons of armour on all your vehicles.

There were a lot of competing designs including Drozd and Arena, and there was another type I can't remember the name of.

The radar technology was fairly simple and cheap... (edit.... not cheap, just fairly simple... with new technology the radar technology used and the computer processing power has become rather simple and cheaper, but it was not cheap) it wasn't anything like a radar on a fighter plane... the genius of the Soviet systems was that it was just like an  invisible eye door bell... when you break the beam it rings a bell.  It was a bit more sophisticated that that though because it checked the direction and speed of the incoming projectile.

Essentially whether it is Drozd or Arena they had fixed munitions located around the tank covering specific sectors. The radius of effect of each munition is actually rather wide so each possible direction the incoming missile could take had lots of overlap so if you repeatedly fire half a dozen missiles or rockets from the same direction it would still get 4-5 within the lethal range of the munition... of course after 4-5 have been launched you would think the tank would turn towards the threat and either back away or open fire which means a different set of munitions would be turned to the threat so it could stop more. The munitions themselves were light an easy to reload.

If you think of a fixed position in Vietnam and the APS systems were Claymore mines... 30-40 of them in the case of Arena... all covering the same territory with lots of overlaps... when you see enemy troops coming you can set off a claymore pointing in that direction when they get close.

In the case of Drozd the rocket flew a few metres away from the vehicle and exploded at a fixed height and distance so when the radar system detected the incoming threat was getting close and would be at the intercept point when the defence munition arrived there it launched the appropriate munition.

I always thought the ARENA system was smarter because it fired its munitions up into the air and the fragments from the munition were fired down into the ground... from ten metres up it would cover a wide area so have every chance of hitting the target but would not be any threat to friendly soldiers 50m away.

I would think redesigning the munition to fire fragments down and forward but also straight up would not be that difficult so that diving top attack munitions could be engaged too. Because it flew to 10m or so up in the air missiles that flew straight and level 2m above the tank and fired their warheads down at the target like BILL and BILL  2 would be intercepted by ARENA too... they might be too far up in the air to be reliably taken out by Drozd, but I would still use it just in case.

Bill and Bill 2 used IR tracking of the missile for guidance so Shtora should have been effective in that case.

I really don't know why they didn't just deploy a few systems... particularly for use in combat zones like Chechnya spending a bit of money on them would allow them to develop and solve any issues they might have had.

Unfortunately some people think if something has a few faults then it is not worth bothering about, but nothing has no faults and when you use a few different solutions all together sometimes a faulty system like ERA... which is light and relatively cheap but of no use on a family car because it reduces armour penetration, it does not stop it completely... and the older first generation models used a lot of explosive which meant BMPs and BTRs would be damaged by it and the residual effect of what is left of the penetrator that might actually do more damage than a quick clean through penetration by a powerful anti armour weapon. But composite armour plus ERA that evolves into NERA, and of course Shtora and (jammers and sensors and smoke grenades) and also APS systems, as well as caged armour... all add up to make a much lighter tank much better protected than say a much bigger and much heavier US equivalent with no ERA or APS... which is why they are adding those things too...

If you think about price, it should be cheaper than adding 20 tons of armour on all your vehicles.

I know a thing or three about being overweight... extra wear and tear on the wheels and suspension, reduced acceleration and breaking no matter how good the engine is... more fuel consumption, and restrictions on bridges and transport options and the ground you can drive over... and the knowledge that you probably wont be penetrated is good... but that is only from the front... from sides and rear you are just as vulnerable as a much lighter tank... except if that lighter tank has an APS system...  many of the current models offer 360 degree coverage... (Nothing offers 360 degree 100% protection though).

There is actually a reasonable argument to be made that the Afganit APS with the hard-kill systems on the T-14 can already defeat "top attack" munitions like the Javelin.
First, the significantly reduced thermal signature of the T-14 and possible (very speculative) "dynamic" exhausting at different parts of the tank already making the Javelin's targeting device and thermal imager on the missile itself hard to use reliably; the possibility to quickly deploy aerosols, thus blocking the targeting (which, with Javelin, can take a long time, especially against a target with low thermal signature), is almost guaranteed to be used considering the T-14 has a laser warning system, UV-sensors that detect missile exhaust and 360° infrared and radar surveillance.

But more to the point: since the Afganit's hard kill elements sit in tubes quite similar to the hard kill system tubes of the Drozd-2 system, which had an angular spread of its projectiles of around 30°, the Afganit's can plausibly be assumed to have a similar feature, which means that targets that come from a rather acute angle vertical approach can very well be within the reach of Afganit; to further increase this probability the tank can simply deploy aerosols above itself as soon as it senses being targeted or a missile approaching (that top aerosol container has twice the capacity of one of the horizontal containers), which would force acute angle approaches no matter what side the missile has been fired from.

Interestingly, Javelins, even in their "top attack" mode, don't seem to actually attack at a wide angle at all:
- see, e.g. the pictures here ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin#%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0 which clearly show the Javelin impacting from the side, even when in "top attack" mode (doesn't mean that they don't hit the top of the tank, just that it's from a rather acute angle, not from 90° straight down)
- also see the graphs below that on the same page (only wiki, though, so if someone has better sources, please correct me), which clearly show very acute angles (once you synchronize the different scaling of the axes and recompute the angles)

This seems to suggest that even a "top attack" Javelin, especially if the tank deploys aerosols above itself, will be able to be destroyed by the Afganit's hard kill system if all else fails.

There is actually a reasonable argument to be made that the Afganit APS with the hard-kill systems on the T-14 can already defeat "top attack" munitions like the Javelin.

Afganit and Standard are the new APS systems and both have been developed after diving top attack anti tank missiles became a serious consideration.

One could argue that copperhead predates all these APS systems but the range and low speed of copperhead and its cost means it wont be widely used and should be fairly straight forward for TOR units to deal with because its trajectory is enormous and the weapon itself not particularly fast.

Javelin will be launched from much closer range, and while it is even slower, the distance the TOR units will be from armour would make reliable and regular interception much less likely.

When Drozd and Arena were designed the only top attack threat was Copperhead (handled by TOR) and BILL an BILL 2, which both could probably deal with in their original forms simply by the way they worked... BILL/2 flys at 2-3m above the line of sight and when it detects a big lump of metal (ie tank or armoured vehicle) it sets off its warhead which explodes down at the top of the vehicle... its actual flight path is flat and level so the Arena munition should still get it, and Drozd would likely get it too as they are not designed to precisely impact the target, they both spread a controlled shower of fragments in specific directions where the target is expected to be... so there is a lot of leeway in terms of interception parameters.

Afganit (for heavy vehicles) and Standard (for lighter vehicles) were both developed after Javelin became a thing so I would expect they are intended for use against them as well.

First, the significantly reduced thermal signature of the T-14 and possible (very speculative) "dynamic" exhausting at different parts of the tank already making the Javelin's targeting device and thermal imager on the missile itself hard to use reliably; the possibility to quickly deploy aerosols, thus blocking the targeting (which, with Javelin, can take a long time, especially against a target with low thermal signature), is almost guaranteed to be used considering the T-14 has a laser warning system, UV-sensors that detect missile exhaust and 360° infrared and radar surveillance.

Agreed. We chatted about Shtora becoming redundant, while some members think it is no longer a think I personally suspect the detection and smoke systems of Shtora continue to be used... I just suspect the IR jammers have probably be replaced with much more sophisticated laser based systems which might not be being shown to the public at the moment. There has been a lot of progress in DIRCMS systems for aircraft to defeat IR guided missiles, and I suspect similar progress has probably been made with tanks.

ATGMs are not IR guided, but many tanks use IR trackers to determine where their missiles are in flight so they can calculate how far they are from the aim point and therefore the flight commands needed to manouver the missile from where it is into the line of sight and on target. That includes wire guided missiles like Sagger and Fagot and Konkurs and Metis as well as western types like Milan and HOT and TOW, but also radio command guided missiles like Shturm and old model Ataka.

Newer model Ataka and Kornet and the Bulat and Krisantema have laser beam riding guidance... the laser beam is boresighted to the aiming reticle or can be adjusted to a few metres above so the missile does not hit trees or bushes or wires on the way to the target... the launcher makes no calculations, the missile looks back at the launcher and determines its own position in the beam and manouvers itself into the centre so flashers and dazzlers and lasers from the target make no difference...

Javelin would likely not get a lock on T-14 because of its IR camo, so most of the time would need to be launched like a conventional Metis like wire guided missile without the top attack approach.

This seems to suggest that even a "top attack" Javelin, especially if the tank deploys aerosols above itself, will be able to be destroyed by the Afganit's hard kill system if all else fails.

Yes, Javelin is not all that it is cracked up to be either... and with 750mm penetration at 0 degrees used in conventional mode, the very slow javelin should be fairly straight forward to stop... made even more so because the low flight speed means guiding the missile for quite some time even over relatively short distances...

Considering its price I think it is very overrated.... I remember in the 1980s the British loved their Milan... mainly for the MIRA thermal sights they got with them... I seem to remember the recon forces used to pinch them because of the remarkable view of the battlefield thermal sights give at night or in smoky conditions.

Well these days most ATGMs come with thermal sights for use at night... the simple guidance of a Konkurs means the launcher itself doesn't need to see the target at all, and it tracks the missiles via their flares which it can do in the dark anyway. It will control the missile to fly along the path designated by the crosshairs without having any clue where or what the target is. You just need a thermal imager over the sight so you can see the target to put the crosshairs on to hit it... as long as it is in range...