Iraqi wars showed how soviet tanks and tanks in general are vulnerable to air threats. And they are on the front during wars, air defences are behind and low flying helicopters use terrain to hide so they are hard targets for them thats why I think t-14 should have manpad controled from inside the tank to protect themselves.
First of all all tanks are vulnerable to air threats... Soviet tanks are no more vulnerable that any other.
Second you want a tank with three crew to carry MANPADS... which crew member are you suggesting stop doing his job and use the MANPAD in combat?
Armata has a guided missile controlled from inside the tank... it is called Sokol-1 and can be used against enemy aircraft and enemy armour.
Exactly what you'vejust said Smile That regardless of US propaganda any tank is vulnerable to airborne means of assault.
Ironically the US solution to the vulnerability to air power is its its own air power. The Soviet and now Russian solution is air defence ground forces... they expect their air power to be busy dealing with enemy air power... something the US does not factor in... doesn't matter against third world countries with no air power but when they come up against real threats they might find they have problems...
Only the presence of manpads on tanks will oblige the fighters to fly higher and be a more easy target for long range systems. Their use will help down many flying vehicules.
Only an idiot would demand the driver, gunner or commander of a tank also keep an eye out for helicopters and attack aircraft...
Tanks operate with IFV... Soviet and Russian ground forces equip their IFV units with MANPADS to support the ground forces against air threats... along with properly equipped air defence units with Shilka and tunguska and TOR and OSA...
Agree. But like I said I see it like a self defence for the tank when its spot an helicopter or a bomber more than an air defence system.
Most tanks wont even know they are under attack until the munition explodes and they either die or not.
The very idea that a tank will detect a helicopter 6km away is stupid...
They are atgm with some capacity against slow moving helicopters. They need a constant pointing of the target. With an igla you shot and don't care about the missile.
They have auto trackers that will follow the target until impact fully automatically and their laser beam sensor looks back at the tank, so DIRCMS don't work against them. DIRCMS work against IR guided missiles... that is what they were designed to counter.
T 80 and t 90 even MS version were never equiped with arena. They could be but they were not. So merkava is the first one. At least first modern one.
Drozd was tested in Afghanistan and upgraded Drozd-2 was introduced by the naval infantry armour so Merkava was hardly first one.
Experience with Drozd resulted in ARENA. (The munitions are launched upwards and fire down into the ground in front of the vehicle minimising the danger to troops nearby...)
With ERA and modern composite armour the T-80 and T-90 would have only benefited with APS for hits to the sides or rear... and it was considered to not be worth the cost.
Israeli is considered as a western country when it comes to weapons.
But as a third world country in terms of human rights...
I know afghanit has nothing to do with trophy. What I try to say is that the good results of trophy may have been taken in consideration when they designed the armata.
That does not make sense... WTF difference does the performance of Trophy have to do with the design of Armata?
Armata was intended from the start to be equipped with Afghanistan... trophy has nothing at all to do with it and is a totally inferior system.
If they wanted a trophy like system they could have introduced Arena, but was not good enough to warrant the cost.
Afghanistan is good enough to do the job they want so its cost is justified.
Russian like you said had arena and drozd but didn't use them apart gor the gew t-55 you mentioned.
The Russian naval infantry introduced it into service.
Then markeva 4 came in and its concept of introducing ads in serial production was good enough that russian did the same with armata. It has nothing to fo with copying.
Bullshit. The T-95 and later Armata were always intended to have Afghanistan fitted as standard... it was always about getting a system that was comprehensive enough to be worth the cost... afghanistan can deal with most incoming threats including sabot rounds.
First I never heard about this missile. I can't argue on this.
S-350 on Armata
Pantsir on Armata
BMPT on Armata: Terminator 3 with double 57mm weapon
Sosna on Armata
S-350 is an air force/aerospace defence force weapon and is not likely to be used anywhere near an armada division.
Pantsir, yes, and terminator... well it doesn't really make sense as all the IFV versions of armata will have anti personel weapons and anti light vehicle weapons and tank level armour, which is the definition of a BMPT. Just fill the troop compartment with extra ammo and it is already a BMPT.
SOSNA is light and cheap and shorter ranged and less capable than Pantsir... armata is a lot of things but cheap is not one of them.
Two 57mm guns does not make sense.
The T-95 was cancelled because of its high costs, the Armata is supposed to be its cheaper/ affordable version and now they are complaining its expensive too, all i can say is i do not like the direction they are going in here
I suspect it is a negotiating tactic to get the price down a little... can't let them think they have the Army over a barrel when it comes to costs.
Of course having said all that the new vehicle families are pretty much state of the art so they are not going to be cheap.
It is not a question of money. It is a question of priorities and frankly incompetence.
Not incompetence... the Army is not used to buying all state of the art vehicles and is used to much cheaper simpler vehicles...