Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+67
Scorpius
Cheetah
Tingsay
Rasisuki Nebia
Shaun901901
Broski
Lennox
Swede55
Mir
ALAMO
RTN
jhelb
flamming_python
Russian_Patriot_
x_54_u43
Backman
limb
Kiko
TMA1
Lurk83
lyle6
The_Observer
Atmosphere
SeigSoloyvov
lancelot
mnztr
Stealthflanker
Viktor
JohninMK
Sujoy
xeno
Mindstorm
TheArmenian
d_taddei2
AlfaT8
dino00
thegopnik
ahmedfire
AJ-47
marcellogo
Arrow
PhSt
Kimppis
miketheterrible
BenVaserlan
Vann7
Cyberspec
william.boutros
Walther von Oldenburg
GarryB
kvs
bolshevik345
LMFS
Hole
hoom
medo
ult
The-thing-next-door
franco
George1
Big_Gazza
higurashihougi
calripson
magnumcromagnon
PapaDragon
Isos
kumbor
71 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1313
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:55 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    From what I read the cassette is thrown out of the tube and it directs the preformed projectile towards the incoming target, do you have other information?
    The hardkill component of Afghanit is basically Drozd-3. Even uses the same 107 mm caliber for its rockets.
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Drozd-2_dslfkjl2
    The EFP is from an unrelated patent.

    Just to add here's a picture of the modernized Raptor which has the Afghanit-lite (basically a smaller caliber system in use with the Kurganets) rockets pointing skywards:
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 9784099_original
    They are hardly going to do it this way if the interceptors can cover the upper hemisphere with horizontal launchers.

    LMFS and Belisarius like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 674
    Points : 678
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  TMA1 Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:27 pm

    Is this the first view of vacuum apfsds??? It looks large. Compare to the 7.62x54r linked ammo. Also wonder about the missile also seen.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 72538910

    ALAMO, LMFS, Hole, lancelot, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 674
    Points : 678
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  TMA1 Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:32 pm

    Also adding this image to this thread specifically for the 57mm apfsds that will go with the t-15 armata's 57mm cannon.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 97220911

    LMFS, Hole, lancelot, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34342
    Points : 34860
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:27 pm

    Even the best APS would have some dead time after interception where anything in that engaged sector can just sail on through.

    It depends on the tracking systems and its capacity, the new system for Armata uses both MMW radar and optical sensors to track incoming threats, the latter being totally passive and the former active of course.

    And Russian vehicle mount ATGMs have salvo fire as standard - even their ATGM teams have taken to co-locating their launch positions so they can double tap hardened targets in quick succession.

    That is true, but does that suggest Russian APS systems have that flaw or the APS systems of their likely opponents have that flaw?

    Only downside is training to intercept is locked at the speed of the turret rotation so you better have the gun pointed in the general direction of the enemy or you're toast. I like it. Its not a crutch, but a tool that only works in your favor if you know what you are doing.

    Multiple launch tubes means turret rotation is not required... even the old ARENA had widely overlapping munitions and the new ARENA has munitions that cover quadrants... four launch bins to cover four directions with munitions that shower interceptor fragments over a wide area and if the drawings are correct can include top attack threats as well.

    The last article I read on the Armatas APS system suggested it used directional fragmentation rockets to direct the fragments at the incoming target to improve interception performance...

    Most threats coming from horizontal angles are covered by the system, but most top attack systems use laser beams to mark the target or optical systems to target the tank like Spike or Javelin etc etc, for which multispectoral smoke is just as effective... especially with incendiary particles that can fake a shape of a tank in IR which creates an IR pattern that may or may not look like a tank to an incoming IR guided missile that could be launched ahead of or behind the tank itself.

    The only current threats the APS on the Armata T-14 seem to not be able to defeat effectively would be a Khrisantema in a top attack flight profile because smoke and IR decoys wont stop it.... a snow storm or a brown out (dust storm) wont stop it either.

    Also adding this image to this thread specifically for the 57mm apfsds that will go with the t-15 armata's 57mm cannon.

    The 57mm gun on the T-15 will be the grenade launching gun so this round:

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Jtlav12

    That 57mm round depicted is used on the 2S38 which will be an AA gun vehicle as well as on naval turrets.

    It is of course possible it might be mounted on a turret for other ground vehicles where higher velocity standard rounds are useful or for anti armour use against enemy heavy IFVs where the APFSDS round for the grenade launcher is not powerful enough...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4937
    Points : 4937
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:10 pm

    lyle6 wrote:
    The hardkill component of Afghanit is basically Drozd-3. Even uses the same 107 mm caliber for its rockets.

    The EFP is from an unrelated patent.

    Just to add here's a picture of the modernized Raptor which has the Afghanit-lite (basically a smaller caliber system in use with the Kurganets) rockets pointing skywards:

    They are hardly going to do it this way if the interceptors can cover the upper hemisphere with horizontal launchers.

    Ok, you know much more than me about tanks but allow me to speculate. The hardkill cassettes are launched and project the fragments perpendicularly to its axis, or frontally? In Arena it is perpendicularly, probably to increase the interception chances and also to avoid hitting friendly forces in the surroundings. If that is the case in Afganit too, it should be perfectly possible to cover the top of the tank. The last picture you link could cover both upper and lower hemisphere in that way.

    GarryB wrote:The 57mm gun on the T-15 will be the grenade launching gun so this round:

    No, the gun in the T-15 is high ballistics, like in the Derivatsiya, but with a lower fire rate. The one in the Kurganets is the low ballistics one.


    The last article I read on the Armatas APS system suggested it used directional fragmentation rockets to direct the fragments at the incoming target to improve interception performance...

    Yeah, I seem to recall that too...
    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 997
    Points : 1021
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  limb Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:Tigr.

    Thats a jeep, not an AFV. I meant IFV, APC, MBT, Light tank, SPG, MLRS launcher.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1313
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:08 pm

    TMA1 wrote:Is this the first view of vacuum apfsds??? It looks large. Compare to the 7.62x54r linked ammo. Also wonder about the missile also seen.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 72538910
    Svinets
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Ijgru10

    LMFS, Hole, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1313
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    It depends on the tracking systems and its capacity, the new system for Armata uses both MMW radar and optical sensors to track incoming threats, the latter being totally passive and the former active of course.
    All of which are unshielded, so the debris from the interception might cause some damage to affect further interception attempts.

    GarryB wrote:
    That is true, but does that suggest Russian APS systems have that flaw or the APS systems of their likely opponents have that flaw?
    They probably tested it against Arena at least.

    GarryB wrote:
    Multiple launch tubes means turret rotation is not required... even the old ARENA had widely overlapping munitions and the new ARENA has munitions that cover quadrants... four launch bins to cover four directions with munitions that shower interceptor fragments over a wide area and if the drawings are correct can include top attack threats as well.

    The last article I read on the Armatas APS system suggested it used directional fragmentation rockets to direct the fragments at the incoming target to improve interception performance...

    Most threats coming from horizontal angles are covered by the system, but most top attack systems use laser beams to mark the target or optical systems to target the tank like Spike or Javelin etc etc, for which multispectoral smoke is just as effective... especially with incendiary particles that can fake a shape of a tank in IR which creates an IR pattern that may or may not look like a tank to an incoming IR guided missile that could be launched ahead of or behind the tank itself.

    The launchers do cover the frontal 180 degree in azimuth, so most threats are covered if the turret is pointed in the general direction of the enemy. For multi-hit the turret can be taken over by the APS for a split second so the turret could rotate a bit to expose a fresh new launcher.

    GarryB wrote:
    The only current threats the APS on the Armata T-14 seem to not be able to defeat effectively would be a Khrisantema in a top attack flight profile because smoke and IR decoys wont stop it.... a snow storm or a brown out (dust storm) wont stop it either.
    AFAIK Khrizantema doesn't have a top attack missile - yet. Armata has passive sensors and advanced armor so it should be able to keep its nose pointed at the threat and have the armor eat the missile the Afghanit might miss.

    LMFS wrote:
    Ok, you know much more than me about tanks but allow me to speculate. The hardkill cassettes are launched and project the fragments perpendicularly to its axis, or frontally? In Arena it is perpendicularly, probably to increase the interception chances and also to avoid hitting friendly forces in the surroundings. If that is the case in Afganit too, it should be perfectly possible to cover the top of the tank. The last picture you link could cover both upper and lower hemisphere in that way.
    That sounds needlessly complicated and expensive. The cassette would have to be guided in some way to allow it the precision to hit something with an EFP. Like shooting a bullet with another bullet - after you've thrown away the gun.

    Hole likes this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 7450
    Points : 7438
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 46
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:35 pm

    TMA1 wrote:Also adding this image to this thread specifically for the 57mm apfsds that will go with the t-15 armata's 57mm cannon.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 97220911
    Shit, it hurts looking at the stuff even without it impacting/exploding around you.  affraid

    GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34342
    Points : 34860
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:34 pm


    No, the gun in the T-15 is high ballistics, like in the Derivatsiya, but with a lower fire rate. The one in the Kurganets is the low ballistics one.

    The so called low ballistics gun fires a rather powerful APFSDS round with better penetration than the 30 x 165mm round can manage.

    A few years back some western companies developed a APFSDS round for the 30 x 165mm but the Russians didn't buy it... now we know why...

    As a BMP gun (T-15 being a BMP of course) the 57mm grenade launcher gun fires a more powerful HE round than the S-60 gun could possibly have and the APFSDS round is likely not as high a performance but would still be rather potent... it would lack the guided shell, but it carries Kornet and Bulat missiles for manouvering targets...

    I rather suspect they will want some experience with both weapons before deciding where and when to use each.

    The higher muzzle velocity would make the S-60 based gun better for air defence roles, but otherwise I would say the grenade launcher would be the most effective infantry support gun.

    It looks large. Compare to the 7.62x54r linked ammo. Also wonder about the missile also seen.

    The round to the far right looks like the standard Svir missile...

    All of which are unshielded, so the debris from the interception might cause some damage to affect further interception attempts.

    Most optics on armoured vehicles have cleaning systems to prevent being covered in mud and being rendered useless... in service systems can be adapted over time with experience too.

    They probably tested it against Arena at least.

    If their own anti armour missiles use that attack method I would think their APS developers would take that into account and find some way of dealing with it.

    AFAIK Khrizantema doesn't have a top attack missile - yet. Armata has passive sensors and advanced armor so it should be able to keep its nose pointed at the threat and have the armor eat the missile the Afghanit might miss.

    Most missiles wont be noticed till they are very close... perhaps 100m or less so less than a second or two to turn to face suggests it is unlikely to be relied upon.

    Drozd had an effective protection angle of +-40 degrees... so 80 degrees in total... Drozd 2 is +- 180 degrees... and 200kgs lighter and with reduced power consumption too.
    ARENA covers 270 degrees in comparison but obviously that moves with the turret.

    The new ARENA has four boxes of munitions that each covers a compass heading...

    That sounds needlessly complicated and expensive. The cassette would have to be guided in some way to allow it the precision to hit something with an EFP. Like shooting a bullet with another bullet - after you've thrown away the gun.

    By EFP are you meaning a self forging fragment?

    My understanding was that the munitions had smart fuses and were essentially claymore fragmentation type mines... the detection system detects a threat and determines the suitable intercept munition which it launches at a suitable time to achieve interception... so no different from Drozd or Arena yet, but the munitions are more advanced so when it is launched it is given an indication to the direction of the incoming threat and the fuse sets off the warhead to direct the bulk of the fragments in the direction the incoming threat is calculated to arrive along its path of travel.

    No moving parts or manouvering... just a directed explosion... to maximise effectiveness and it would have the added bonus of improving coverage if threats keep coming from the same location you wont run out of munitions able to engage the threats so quickly as if each rocket covered a direction and one direction only.



    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4937
    Points : 4937
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:18 am

    lyle6 wrote:That sounds needlessly complicated and expensive. The cassette would have to be guided in some way to allow it the precision to hit something with an EFP. Like shooting a bullet with another bullet - after you've thrown away the gun.  

    I refer rather to a configurable fragmentation pattern. There are reasons why I think the blast direction is perpendicular to the advance direction of the cassette and not in the same axis
    - It would not allow to effectively intercept missiles with different trajectories / flight height even on a lateral approach
    - It would not allow to intercept top attack threats
    - It would not be effective against APFSDS (blast perpendicular to the rod is needed for that)
    - It would be dangerous for infantry and vehicles in the surroundings

    A flying cassette that explodes at the right time is the same way Arena works too. Maybe the warheads can work downwards and upwards only, and that is the reason they are spaced in the azimuth plane
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1313
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Most optics on armoured vehicles have cleaning systems to prevent being covered in mud and being rendered useless... in service systems can be adapted over time with experience too.
    The kind of debris you're going to have to deal with is of the supersonic variety. Protective glass and dielectric covers won't cut it.

    GarryB wrote:
    Most missiles wont be noticed till they are very close... perhaps 100m or less so less than a second or two to turn to face suggests it is unlikely to be relied upon.
    Most missiles on launch emit a lot of heat and light. Blink and you might miss it, but high speed sensors would not. A tank shooting APFSDS rounds from 2 km would hit its target in just above 1 second - but 1 second is forever to a computer. With no people in the turret and much reduced dead weight of the armor the T-14 might have a ludicrous rotation speed than previous footage might suggest, so it might not even be an issue.


    GarryB wrote:
    Drozd had an effective protection angle of +-40 degrees... so 80 degrees in total... Drozd 2 is +- 180 degrees... and 200kgs lighter and with reduced power consumption too.
    ARENA covers 270 degrees in comparison but obviously that moves with the turret.

    The new ARENA has four boxes of munitions that each covers a compass heading...
    Arena-M has 12 cassettes in total but only half covers the most dangerous frontal arc. Afghanit has 10 rockets protecting that same sector.

    GarryB wrote:
    By EFP are you meaning a self forging fragment?

    My understanding was that the munitions had smart fuses and were essentially claymore fragmentation type mines... the detection system detects a threat and determines the suitable intercept munition which it launches at a suitable time to achieve interception... so no different from Drozd or Arena yet, but the munitions are more advanced so when it is launched it is given an indication to the direction of the incoming threat and the fuse sets off the warhead to direct the bulk of the fragments in the direction the incoming threat is calculated to arrive along its path of travel.

    No moving parts or manouvering... just a directed explosion... to maximise effectiveness and it would have the added bonus of improving coverage if threats keep coming from the same location you wont run out of munitions able to engage the threats so quickly as if each rocket covered a direction and one direction only.
    The Russians want the Afghanit to intercept APFSDS arrows with which fragmentation would have little to no effect: its a solid hunk of heavy metal, fragments won't do much. Which is why the Afghanit likely won't use a fragmentation warhead but an HE blast warhead, and a huge one at that. Drozd-2 had 19 kg rockets - its basically a tank shell.

    LMFS wrote:
    I refer rather to a configurable fragmentation pattern. There are reasons why I think the blast direction is perpendicular to the advance direction of the cassette and not in the same axis
    - It would not allow to effectively intercept missiles with different trajectories / flight height even on a lateral approach
    - It would not allow to intercept top attack threats
    - It would not be effective against APFSDS (blast perpendicular to the rod is needed for that)
    - It would be dangerous for infantry and vehicles in the surroundings
    Overflight or descending top attack can only be guided and so can be dealt with using the softkill countermeasures. Far more effectively even.

    Against APFSDS arrows an HE blast rocket only needs to get close enough to inflict enough impulse along the fins to deflect the arrow that it impacts at an angle, greatly decreasing its penetrative power.

    And there's only two directions that fragmentation can go that is safe for nearby infantry: up or down. Anywhere else and metallic fragments can kill up to a few hundred meters.

    LMFS wrote:
    A flying cassette that explodes at the right time is the same way Arena works too. Maybe the warheads can work downwards and upwards only, and that is the reason they are spaced in the azimuth plane
    The rockets are sited only slightly above the turret ring. Most incoming projectiles would be level or just slightly below or up.

    TMA1 wrote:

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 72538910
    Another thing to note is the propellant charge for the APFSDS round is bit larger. That suggests that the T-14 (or any 2A82 equipped tank for that matter) can use older APFSDS projectile halves with the newer charge for greatly improved performance even without buying all new ammo. Perfect for export customers who might not want to wait for 20 years until the Russians clear then obsoleted ammo for sale.

    Hole, TMA1 and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34342
    Points : 34860
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:57 am

    The kind of debris you're going to have to deal with is of the supersonic variety. Protective glass and dielectric covers won't cut it.

    The optical ports are small and could be designed to have backup ports incase the primary ones are damaged... I would think they would test these systems a lot and if it was a problem they would notice during tests.

    Most missiles on launch emit a lot of heat and light. Blink and you might miss it, but high speed sensors would not. A tank shooting APFSDS rounds from 2 km would hit its target in just above 1 second - but 1 second is forever to a computer. With no people in the turret and much reduced dead weight of the armor the T-14 might have a ludicrous rotation speed than previous footage might suggest, so it might not even be an issue.

    Most systems use MMW radar, Arena for example has a detection range of 50m and a reaction time of 0.07 seconds, but then it has no real moving parts... the threat is detected and the path of the threat is calculated and if it is going to hit the vehicle a suitable munition is selected and launched at the appropriate time to intercept the threat... it engages targets moving at 70 to 700m/s... obviously the system on Armata can manage much faster threats and also has optical as well as radar sensors...

    I would speculate that optical detection systems and also radar detection systems scanning the airspace and ground around a vehicle would be highly useful for crew in the hull of an armoured vehicle... and that expanding the range of the radar might be useful in a range of roles including finding enemy positions based on enemy fire going past the tank allowing enemy firing positions to be calculated and passed on to other units.

    It is very much a case of everyone with a shared digital map each scribbling in enemy positions and their own positions to allow better coordination and prosecution of enemy positions.

    Arena-M has 12 cassettes in total but only half covers the most dangerous frontal arc. Afghanit has 10 rockets protecting that same sector.

    You have to make the distinction... Afghanit is designed for the T-14 which will face all sorts of enemy but will be facing enemy armour which might not have the luxury of side or rear shots in battle... the T-14 would certainly do its best to keep its frontal armour pointed at the enemy most of the time... (obviously not always possible)... whereas ARENA is a general APS that would be fairly widely used in situations where attacks from the side and rear might actually be more common than from the front.... Ironically the best protection might be a combination of Afghanit and Arena where the Arena system covering the sides and rear of the vehicle while the Afghanit covers the front... it might be the case that even if Afghanit intercepts an APFSDS going for the engine deck that it will still hit and penetrate to the engine doing serious damage, but because it will be going sideways it will break up and not penetrate to the inside of the tank... or from the front the Yaw inflicted on the penetrator means it wont penetrate the frontal armour even if on paper it should if it got a clean hit.

    The Russians want the Afghanit to intercept APFSDS arrows with which fragmentation would have little to no effect: its a solid hunk of heavy metal, fragments won't do much. Which is why the Afghanit likely won't use a fragmentation warhead but an HE blast warhead, and a huge one at that. Drozd-2 had 19 kg rockets - its basically a tank shell.

    Actually I would argue that logic... I think metal pieces accelerated by explosives would inflict more kinetic energy onto an incoming object than just the expanding gas of a shockwave from an explosion.

    The APFSDS arrows are like nails that have been hit with a super powerful hammer... most will penetrate armour easily.... but before they reach the armour if they get tipped even at a very small angle and the stress of impact is not lined up straight down the shaft of the penetrator (nail) the impact force turns from a penetration force to a bending force which would bend a nail or shatter a penetrator and instead of all that energy going into punching through the target, it goes into bending the penetrator which reduces its penetration performance to pathetic levels.

    Angled armour will not cause a rod penetrator to bounce off... but a sideways force that turns the penetrator can result in defeating the penetrator.

    Lots of special layered armours are designed so some layers shift and grip the sides of the penetrator or twist and snap the penetrator as it moves through.

    Some penetrators have inner hard cores and outer sheaths that melt on impact and act as a sort of lubricant to help penetration.

    Overflight or descending top attack can only be guided and so can be dealt with using the softkill countermeasures. Far more effectively even.

    Soft kill measures are very useful and should be carried and used heavily where possible and are more effective than many think.

    From the sounds of things lasers being used to destroy drones to 5kms suggests that lasers used to blind IR and IIR guided missiles should be easily possible too...


    And there's only two directions that fragmentation can go that is safe for nearby infantry: up or down. Anywhere else and metallic fragments can kill up to a few hundred meters.

    ARENA is very clever in that regard as it is launched upwards and directs its fragments down into the ground minimising the danger area.

    I have seen a diagram of the ARENA working that shows extra munitions that fire upwards at an angle backwards to engage incoming diving top attack weapons.... all the calculations would be the same really... track the incoming target and fire at the correct time.

    The original ARENA had a row of munitions around the front of the turret... there is no reason why you couldn't have two rows with one row for top attack and one for horizontal attack weapons.

    Of course if you want to build the design into the tank you could have the turret armour on the outside... ERA first and then cheek armour and then a space for the ARENA munitions and then a thinner inner armour layer and then the crew compartment... even when fired the space for the ARENA munitions acts as spaced armour...

    Hell, you could have Afghanit in front of the ERA too... why not.

    ARENA modules can be manually fired if enemy infantry are detected in front of the tank too...

    That suggests that the T-14 (or any 2A82 equipped tank for that matter) can use older APFSDS projectile halves with the newer charge for greatly improved performance even without buying all new ammo.

    Good spotting... Smile

    lyle6 likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9875
    Points : 9861
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:35 pm

    Arena-M has 12 cassettes in total but only half covers the most dangerous frontal arc. Afghanit has 10 rockets protecting that same sector.

    Frontal arc isn't the most dangerous anymore. ATGM are more used on the sides, rear and top than on the front. When driving a tank you always expose your sides even if the enemy is in front of you because you can't just go straight at him and you don't always know where he is.

    An APS that can stop at least 4 attacks on every side is good.

    GarryB likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1313
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Wed Aug 24, 2022 2:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I would speculate that optical detection systems and also radar detection systems scanning the airspace and ground around a vehicle would be highly useful for crew in the hull of an armoured vehicle... and that expanding the range of the radar might be useful in a range of roles including  finding enemy positions based on enemy fire going past the tank allowing enemy firing positions to be calculated and passed on to other units.

    It is very much a case of everyone with a shared digital map each scribbling in enemy positions and their own positions to allow better coordination and prosecution of enemy positions.
    Exactly. And Afghanit would be designed to piggyback on this shared situational awareness of the combat unit. Instead of each system guarding the space around its own parent vehicle you would have a network where the each system locks down overlapping sectors. Obviously the protective rockets only have a limited effective radius so perhaps we might see the return of close order formations to take full advantage of the APS. Twisted Evil

    GarryB wrote:
    You have to make the distinction... Afghanit is designed for the T-14 which will face all sorts of enemy but will be facing enemy armour which might not have the luxury of side or rear shots in battle... the T-14 would certainly do its best to keep its frontal armour pointed at the enemy most of the time... (obviously not always possible)... whereas ARENA is a general APS that would be fairly widely used in situations where attacks from the side and rear might actually be more common than from the front.... Ironically the best protection might be a combination of Afghanit and Arena where the Arena system covering the sides and rear of the vehicle while the Afghanit covers the front... it might be the case that even if Afghanit intercepts an APFSDS going for the engine deck that it will still hit and penetrate to the engine doing serious damage, but because it will be going sideways it will break up and not penetrate to the inside of the tank... or from the front the Yaw inflicted on the penetrator means it wont penetrate the frontal armour even if on paper it should if it got a clean hit.
    Afghanit is primarily designed to protect against high end threats like hypervelocity arrows from MBTs and vehicle launched supersonic ATGMs to the detriment of its capability against lower end threats like the ubiquitous ATGM/RPG teams.
    Ironically, against the most likely opponents Arena (especially the modernized version) actually makes a lot more sense than the Afghanit.

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually I would argue that logic... I think metal pieces accelerated by explosives would inflict more kinetic energy onto an incoming object than just the expanding gas of a shockwave from an explosion.
    The shockwaves don't need to inflict damage on the arrow itself. Its sufficient cause a turbulence effect to destabilize the arrow in flight. Obviously this only works if there's enough standoff to allow the arrow to yaw a bit before impact. Same goes for HEAT missiles and rockets, both of which would be even more susceptible to this effect as they have much larger flight surfaces.

    GarryB wrote:
    Soft kill measures are very useful and should be carried and used heavily where possible and are more effective than many think.

    From the sounds of things lasers being used to destroy drones to 5kms suggests that lasers used to blind IR and IIR guided missiles should be easily possible too...
    We might even see higher caliber RCWS. Something like a 30 mm airburst should be excellent against micro UAVs.

    Isos wrote:
    Frontal arc isn't the most dangerous anymore. ATGM are more used on the sides, rear and top than on the front. When driving a tank you always expose your sides even if the enemy is in front of you because you can't just go straight at him and you don't always know where he is.

    An APS that can stop at least 4 attacks on every side is good.
    It really depends. But as the Russians have shown, copious application of prophylactic artillery barrages are more than enough to reduce such incidences to the minimum. Hard to shoot ATGMs when you're busy hunkering down and praying whilst 152 mm shells rain around your foxhole.

    GarryB and Scorpius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34342
    Points : 34860
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:03 am

    Afghanit is primarily designed to protect against high end threats like hypervelocity arrows from MBTs and vehicle launched supersonic ATGMs to the detriment of its capability against lower end threats like the ubiquitous ATGM/RPG teams.
    Ironically, against the most likely opponents Arena (especially the modernized version) actually makes a lot more sense than the Afghanit.

    The interesting thing is that ARENA-M does not have that big tower any more and its sensors are distributed much like Afghanits sensors, which means they would actually be redundant if you had both systems mounted, but the launch bins for the ARENA munitions launch upwards so you could pretty much put them anywhere.

    Using the Drozd-3 for high velocity threats, ARENA for RPGs... those new 10kg SAMs they are talking about for intercepting artillery could be mounted on a command vehicle perhaps that defends more than one platform at a time... perhaps convoy defence... maybe even build it into a BMPT and use it as a convoy defence vehicle too...

    Add some laser anti drone weapons that could also damage optical guidance systems or blind incoming weapons like Spike and Javelin... well if they are powerful enough to physically destroy drones to 5km they could probably blind EO guided weapons to four or five times that range...

    The shockwaves don't need to inflict damage on the arrow itself. Its sufficient cause a turbulence effect to destabilize the arrow in flight. Obviously this only works if there's enough standoff to allow the arrow to yaw a bit before impact. Same goes for HEAT missiles and rockets, both of which would be even more susceptible to this effect as they have much larger flight surfaces.

    Could that be defeated by simply making the fins much smaller or thinner... they are needed to stabilise the penetrator but you could put extra fins half way down as well that match the tail fins so any sideways blast doesn't twist it, it tries to shift it sideways instead... or reduce the number of fins to maybe two and give it a slow roll so there is a chance to explode next to the penetrator with the two fins edge on...

    Air to air missiles often have what is called an expanding rod warhead where the warhead consists of a long warhead with rods of metal around the outside, with small links connecting each rod to the rod next to it. The explosion causes the rods to spread outwards dragging the rods next to them with them.

    The result on target is cuts like a sword instead of holes like a shotgun blast... 20cm long rods linked together moving sideways at high speed would minimise the threat to nearby troops but would maximise the chance of hitting an APFDS round that might be 1 metre long... the calculations would need to be very very accurate though...

    Shrapnel with smart fusing to direct the fragments in a very specific direction makes more sense to me though... they have been using those for half a century with their SAMs...

    We might even see higher caliber RCWS. Something like a 30 mm airburst should be excellent against micro UAVs.

    Very much agree, and an Armata based BMPT with 30mm or 57mm calibre rounds would be ideal with airburst ammo...

    It really depends. But as the Russians have shown, copious application of prophylactic artillery barrages are more than enough to reduce such incidences to the minimum. Hard to shoot ATGMs when you're busy hunkering down and praying whilst 152 mm shells rain around your foxhole.

    In the terror and difficulties of war, the complex difficult to use weapons often fail first... especially when supplied from old stocks by allies who don't think you can win anyway.

    Werewolf and lyle6 like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1313
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sun Sep 04, 2022 10:45 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The interesting thing is that ARENA-M does not have that big tower any more and its sensors are distributed much like Afghanits sensors, which means they would actually be redundant if you had both systems mounted, but the launch bins for the ARENA munitions launch upwards so you could pretty much put them anywhere.

    Using the Drozd-3 for high velocity threats, ARENA for RPGs... those new 10kg SAMs they are talking about for intercepting artillery could be mounted on a command vehicle perhaps that defends more than one platform at a time... perhaps convoy defence... maybe even build it into a BMPT and use it as a convoy defence vehicle too...

    Add some laser anti drone weapons that could also damage optical guidance systems or blind incoming weapons like Spike and Javelin... well if they are powerful enough to physically destroy drones to 5km they could probably blind EO guided weapons to four or five times that range...

    Arena-M is an excellent system by all accounts. Its only too bad that the ERA shrouds on Russian tanks already provide significant shaped charge protection of rockets and missiles that the addition of the Arena-M probably wouldn't improve survivability that much. An unfortunate case of suffering from success.

    GarryB wrote:
    Could that be defeated by simply making the fins much smaller or thinner... they are needed to stabilise the penetrator but you could put extra fins half way down as well that match the tail fins so any sideways blast doesn't twist it, it tries to shift it sideways instead... or reduce the number of fins to maybe two and give it a slow roll so there is a chance to explode next to the penetrator with the two fins edge on...

    Air to air missiles often have what is called an expanding rod warhead where the warhead consists of a long warhead with rods of metal around the outside, with small links connecting each rod to the rod next to it. The explosion causes the rods to spread outwards dragging the rods next to them with them.

    The result on target is cuts like a sword instead of holes like a shotgun blast... 20cm long rods linked together moving sideways at high speed would minimise the threat to nearby troops but would maximise the chance of hitting an APFDS round that might be 1 metre long... the calculations would need to be very very accurate though...

    Shrapnel with smart fusing to direct the fragments in a very specific direction makes more sense to me though... they have been using those for half a century with their SAMs...

    The fins are already small enough as they are to minimize drag so its a really challenging target to hit with random fragmentation. And while circular fragmentation might work on thin-skinned Aluminum frames of aircraft and missiles I don't think it will be as effective against solid heavy metal arrows. Directional warheads with onboard proximity fuzes would probably work though, but you'd probably end with very expensive interceptors, and a more expensive system at the end - and the Armata is already very expensive.

    GarryB wrote:
    In the terror and difficulties of war, the complex difficult to use weapons often fail first... especially when supplied from old stocks by allies who don't think you can win anyway.
    The other side is also arrogant and stupid enough to believe their hype so much that simple realities of war don't apply to them. You have the ostensibly largest economies on the planet but they can't even produce enough material to match a tenth of that used by an "economy the size of Italy".

    Hole likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1313
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sat Sep 24, 2022 4:20 am

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 226619
    Thicc tank spotted in the wild. Russians flexing their unlimited bitumen supplies by running threads bare metal on roads.

    zepia, LMFS, Hole, TMA1 and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1575
    Points : 1569
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Arrow Today at 9:47 pm

    https://t.me/dva_majors/3037

    Werewolf and Hole like this post


    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 37 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:51 pm