Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
-
9 hours ago, SH_MM said:
This is just a typical comment from you... "current systems are perfect!!!".
Lesson #1 kids, if you want to be absolutely sure you win an argument, dismiss the other person's argument by saying his comment was "typical". It eliminates all validity he had.
Ad Hominem beats all.
Yeah, seriously though, if you want to have a civilized discussion based on mutual respect, that is NOT the way to do it. I'll agree to forget about this if you also agree to stop throwing this sort of comments into every post you make.
9 hours ago, SH_MM said:Weapons like SMArt 155, BONUS, etc. will strike the tank's roof armor from a nearly vertical angle; the EFP warhead will detonate 50 to 150 metres above the vehicle and strike downwards. There is no way for Trophy or other APS to deal with that. Even dumb artillery/mortar sheels can be easily fitted witha nose section for course-correction/guidance and strike tanks from nearly vertical angles, way above the maximum elevation of current APS.
SMArt 155 and BONUS are unique in a way that they can detonate far above the target as they do not utilize a HEAT warhead (unlike, say, the M712 Copperhead for example). They are not the subject of my argument of the ability to defeat artillery shells. I spoke of conventionally armed artillery shells (HE filler). I also don't think, however, that APS should evolve to defeat this specific threat. Instead, have multiple layers of APS, one of which would be destined to defeat primarily artillery threats (laser based, which within a few years will be feasible).
Against simple HE shells, ordinary APS, if programmed correctly, should be effective to at least a certain extent.
9 hours ago, SH_MM said:Then there is a big question in functionality of sensors and software. APS are designed to ignore ATGMs/RPGs which would not impact on the vehicle, because otherwise valuable countermeasures are lost. This is a general problem of APS vs top-attack weapons, but it could also mean overfly top-attack systems such as TOW-2B and BILL-2 won't be engaged by them.
Yes, they are designed to ignore certain non-threatening things, but it's not that simple. APS, through the 3D identification function of their respective radar systems, can classify the type of missile, and possibly sub-type based on trajectory for example. This is all the work of programming, and not limited by the physical attributes of the whole APS system.
If, for example, an APS detects and identifies a Fagot type missile, and see it veers off course and misses the vehicle, info it has in a possible database may prevent it from perceiving it as a possible threat (of top-attack). It will just perceive it as a missed projectile since it cannot possibly dive for a top attack. But if it identifies a Javelin, for example, it will know it is capable of top-attack engagement. Same goes for BGM-71F Tow-2B. The shape of the missile, as well as its trajectory and speed allow for classification of it and thus notion of whether it is capable of top-attack.
And if it is capable of top-attack, the APS could be programmed to engage if the missile passes at a certain point/area. Intentionally missing to merely deplete the APS would be idiotic to say the least.
And classification of missiles is nothing fictional. It exists, and it's in use in operational APS, and other types of missile defense systems.
9 hours ago, SH_MM said:Your theory about "rotating systems defeat[ing] top attack munitions" because "they dont need to shoot straight up" is wrong for a multitude of reasons. First of all, these system don't know where the top-attack weapons are, because the radar coverage of current system doesn't include the upper sections of the hemisphere. How should the APS intercept a threat that it cannot see?
They can, or at least some systems can. Here's an excerpt from the EL/M-2133 radar from IAI in use on the Trophy system. Seems pretty clear to me that it can. And if they can, other radar manufacturing defense companies can. And if everyone relevant can, then it's just a matter of requirements from the user.
9 hours ago, SH_MM said:Aside of this issue, not all launchers can be elevated so far, because the There are also issues with the detection range required to spot most types of top-attack missiles and the interception distance required for the APS to properly work. Trophy's launchers cannot be turned enough to cover the roof (thanks to their location and the fixed blast shields), while Iron Fist/AVePS and similar systems require greater standoff to not damage the system when the HE warhead explodes.
I don't know whether the AVePS uses a fragment-free warhead or not, but I know the Iron Fist doesn't, and has a directed blast. Other similar systems who use fragmentation grenades should also have directed blasts. So when firing at a top-attack missile, the blast and fragmentation should go sideways, and not cause any harm to the vehicle. And to shield of residual damage, all that is required is some light physical protection. Most if not all external equipment should be ruggedized to protect from bullets and fragments. That's not much different than when firing horizontally or close to horizontal (though if the warhead uses fragments, it may well pose a serious threat to nearby infantry). Regarding the Trophy, last time I got a tour in Rafael's museum and saw the internals of the autoloader, I got the impression that its elevation capabilities are quite extensive. Extensive enough to perhaps fire over the blast shield if required. Now, unless we're talking about a very extreme case of a missile taking a VERY steep dive at considerable height, such operation shouldn't even be required.
-
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
Honestly I thought Spike could do these steep dives already.
It could, you just needed to use manual control for it, while Spike II lets you do that via a certain mode.
-
12 hours ago, SH_MM said:
Systems like Trophy, Iron Fist, AVePS etc. also cannot shot straight upwards.
Rotating systems can defeat top attack munitions and for that they dont need to shoot straight up.
Even in the extreme case that a certain missile will fly a few dozen meters above the target and will sharply turn 90°, and head straight downwards (note: only the Spike II so far is marketed as capable of countering APS, yet has a dive angle of "only" 70°), the launchers don't need to aim straight up. They can just rotate so that they face the center of the vehicle, and shoot when the missile enters their range. This effectively leaves no dead zone, and is a merit of APS with rotating launchers.
The only requirement for that is to either have the radars cover the top (which is definitely possible), or develop algorithms that would allow estimating the point of interception in the absence of continuous tracking.
So with sufficient top armor, the Abrams can defeat intercepted artillery shells.
-
Defense-Update take decades to post new content, but when they do, they always add some nice new details:
http://defense-update.com/20171010_aps-3.html
http://defense-update.com/20171010_maf.html
Prime example is this new photo of a test rig.
-
-
Stop stop! This is about as erect as I can get.
-
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
Heck. (sorry for saying such un-christian things but) I'm always beat to it.
Gotta say, it doesn't look quite as good on the slick Abrams as it does on the chubby Merkava.
-
9 hours ago, Ramlaen said:
I am also willing to bet money the army is leaning towards a 105mm gun, based on the interest in 105mm multipurpose ammunition that I don't feel the M1128 would warrant.
IMI will also present in AUSA this year a 105mm derivative of its 120mm "Hatzav" M339 shell, which was hailed as a flexible but simpler (and much cheaper) munition than the APAM.
Because seriously who has the time to choose between 2 different air burst types?!
-
That's no way to fend off the crawlers.
-
To be fair, it might not be too wise to put the Oplot-M into mass service.
Best course of action IMO would be to give just a handful to an experimental weapons unit, pair a few military photographers to them, and send them off to limited operations. Then market them as combat proven, with combat footage being made available to top military brass tasked with procurement. Boost sales and for every sold piece, buy several cheaper derivatives for the Ukrainian army. They can make do with what they have.
-
S O, can you please explain to me the logic in firing HESH to disable an MBT, since you're already talking about nonsense?
You can do a ton of damage to any tank by firing HE practically everywhere on it.
But you dont see anyone doing it. It's probably not written in anyone's doctrine.
When you develop a type of munition, your aim is not to inflict severe damage. You aim to absolutely obliterate the target and give the full package in one hit.
Hit the running gear and you disable the tank for a while. But he can still fire at you, so you have to GTFO before you get FUBAR.
Hit the turret and he can still run back, recover, and probably back in action within a few days.
However, hit the target, penetrate it, and inflict enough damage to do a mission kill almost regardless of where you hit, and make the tank inoperable to the point it has to be abandoned, and you just scored a victory.
Why spend numerous shells when you can spend one?
Maybe just abandon the 105mm HESH and gatling and go for just a standard 30mm cannon because a few of its shells can blind a tank and do severe damage to it.
Or, or... If you just throw enough pianos at it, it'll eventually be crushed.
Off to calculate the maximum piano threshold of a T-14.
-
12 hours ago, S O said:
"hull front 60° protected against portable threats" = Eryx (137 mm tandem HEAT). One should probably make the cut at 120 mm tandem HEAT, though. That would be about 850 mm RHAeq CE (assuming the rule of thumb multiplier of 7.2 that applies to the optimum shape, tantalum liner and best explosives used in HEAT).
So that makes you pretty much entirely vulnerable to most modern ATGMs, especially the Russian Kornet which will get a serious overmatch.
ATGMs are something you can swarm pretty easily, and is readily available to concealable infantry. Smoke will give a chance at evading them, for a while. But it's a very limited solution.
And APS is not enough to replace passive armor modules.
12 hours ago, S O said:I explicitly mentioned HVMs (things like LOSAT, CKEM) in the example for a more modest tank design. This means the MBT would -despite 105 mm gun- still be able to penetrate as well as with a 130 mm gun, though not at very short ranges (approx. 0-500 m or so) since the HVMs first need to accelerate. It might actually end up being MORE able to penetrate than a MBT with a 125-130 mm gun.
Furthermore, T-14 Armata appears to use rather weak turret protection that is likely not be impervious to 105 mm. The important turret component are on the outside and can at most be bulletproofed anyway. Even a 105 mm HESH hit could easily mission kill a T-14 (mobility or firepower kill, depends on where it hits).
Want to add missiles? Give it to the IFVs, or have a gun-launched missile. Limiting yourself to using the gun only against medium-armored targets or soft targets, and only using ATGMs (HVMs) against tanks sounds a lot like what an IFV does.
You know what's the good thing about NOT going your way? You actually have dual capabilities. You have the freedom to fire off missiles before you have a line of sight with an enemy, softening them up, and then reliably engaging them with a powerful main gun that you can know will pierce their armor. You don't limit yourself to just one capability that greatly limits you to a very certain range of engagement. If they get point blank, you're dead.
12 hours ago, S O said:HVMs also offer advantages that even a 130 mm gun couldn't offer. There's a much higher rate of fire, possibly including the ability to arrange for two impacts with 0.2-0.3 seconds delay, so even a hard kill APS that could defeat long rods would fail to defeat the second incoming HVM. Ambush situations on road marching tanks would allow the gunner or commander to target & track four tanks, launching four HVMs in ripple fire for up to four kills with less exposure time than any detection-to-kill drill for tank guns (~7 seconds depending on type, crew and circumstances) could exploit.
First, that depends highly on the APS itself. Developing a tank to use HVMs as its main anti-tank weapon is a very expensive undertaking. It takes billions. Updating an APS to utilize different launchers to avoid the physical restriction in time delay is nothing in comparison.
Second, this advantage in ambush situations is dwarfed by the fact that you never send a single tank to do anything alone. You send a platoon of 4 at the least, or you send a company, and even without HVMs they can deliver a LOT of firepower in a very short time. Short enough for a whole column to not realize what's hitting them.
12 hours ago, S O said:About protection; MBTs need to sprint from cover to cover. It's rarely possible to expose only the frontal 60° during this (even if threats are limited to a 30° cone), so even the heaviest-protected MBT is going to expose areas in combat that a 105-130 mm gun can penetrate. This is particularly true for the hull, which has to be oriented into driving direction, unlike the turret which can be stabilised in (one) threat direction. The hull can also be protected in hull down positions, so there's a good case for preferring a compromise in glacis protection over turret front protection (unless the latter is unmanned, then the case is reversed, see T-14). That's why I pointed out the potential compromise of not hardening the hull against high-end KE threats.
Hulls are already traditionally less armored than turrets. But it probably has nothing to do with sprinting from cover to cover. If you have still plenty of targets in LoS, that can also fire directly at you, you don't sprint anywhere.
12 hours ago, S O said:MUCH higher protection levels are possible at 50 tons, this has been stated by experts like Hilmes repeatedly. The Japanese Type 10 has a bigger gun and some other weight-increasing extras and still only 44 t empty weight. PLA 125 mm are no doubt the threat that the Japanese looked at.
Glacis protection against HEAT is fairly simple and not terribly heavy because the sloping makes reactive amour very effective on the upper glacis and much depth is available for a very weight-efficient CE protection. Such a glacis would weigh much less than the T-14's because the latter is no doubt also meant against 120 mm L/55 U-238 KE threats.
Besides, I wrote "at about 40 tons". That would be anything from 37-43 metric tons.
What you're essentially proposing is another Challenger 2. Not in its characteristics, but in its design philosophy. That's shit-tier. You leave no room for improvement. The UK MoD thought they could do with a tank gun that couldn't actually pierce modern armor properly. It was okay for a couple of years. But very shortly after, still when it was young, its gun became obsolete. And because of short-sightedness they need a crap-ton of money to put the firepower at a merely adequate level, for less than half their tanks.
Same here. You want a tank whose firepower is easily countered but NOT easily replaced. You want a tank that is only lightly protected, but still go toe to toe with modern MBTs?
Just a little side note; The T-14's turret can be replaced. They won't do it for now, but if they'll feel it's necessary, they can either bolt on armor or have the turret replaced with something more mechanically resilient to add armor on it, whereas changing a gun to deal with such a change would require a tremendous logistical effort.
- Belesarius and Lord_James
-
2
-
9 minutes ago, Toimisto said:
Why did china change from 152mm to 155mm artillery, seems strange to me to "abandon" a large amount of stockpiled ammunition. Also why does russian 152mm artillery use cases instead of bagged charges?
Presumably to match up its ammunition quality and firepower with that of NATO. They had no issue introducing NATO standard ammunition before, such as a 120mm gun for the PTZ-89 or a 105mm for numerous MBTs, including the latest VT-5.
-
Boi! Remind me to open a new murder case when I wake up. Night.
-
Since I'm not detecting a radar as part of the Nozh set, how exactly is it meant to work against shaped charges? Shaped charges detonate at a standoff distance, at which the Nozh is claimed, in the patent drawing, to be able to identify and fire off against the just formed jet before it impacts the plate. Doesn't seem like the man who wrote the patent even knew how the system itself was meant to work.
-
On 20.9.2017 at 7:25 PM, Collimatrix said:
Paul J. Hazell's Armor states that the most important factor for anti-APFSDS APS is to hit the penetrator when it is quite far away from the vehicle. It takes a significant amount of time (and thus distance) for the rod to yaw enough to reduce its penetration. Also, yawing (or even fracturing) the incoming long rod doesn't get rid of the KE of the threat, or even substantially change its vector, it just makes it penetrate less efficiently. As an example, an APS which could hit a long rod with 20:1 L/D ratio hard enough and far out enough to induce a 20 degree yaw (apparently even this amount of yaw is technically challenging) would reduce the penetration of the long rod by 60%. 40% of the penetration of a modern APFSDS round is still quite a bit of penetration, so any vehicle with anti-APFSDS APS is still going to need a substantial amount of passive armor to absorb the intercepted threats.
Where did you get those numbers?
So far the figures I've heard, from IMI, were 90% penetration reduction from a mere 7° yaw. At such angle, what you're getting is mostly a teething effect.
-
11 hours ago, Sturgeon said:
Israeli "Carmel" tank promises to funnel gullible investors' money into company pockets, never move beyond mockup stage.
How did you come up to that conclusion from merely that one article? Which I must say, is misleading as it's basing itself on false information. The Carmel was never intended to replace the Merkava, and Jpost, who first reported this, mistaken it for such an attempt.
-
I got a few more if you want.
Merkava 3 MRS:
https://www.idf.il/media/12069/000903698.pdf
Compass for Merkava 3 (also retrofitted on Mark 2, Magach 6/7):
https://www.idf.il/media/12166/000907324.pdf
Nagmapop long range observation system:
https://www.idf.il/media/12149/000907014.pdf
AFV curtain (?):
https://www.idf.il/media/12083/000904368.pdf
Bore-sight for 120mm:
https://www.idf.il/media/12094/000905070.pdf
MLRS Hull part 1:
https://www.idf.il/media/12187/000907600.pdf
MLRS Hull part 2:
https://www.idf.il/media/12188/000907618.pdf
MLRS Launcher part 1 (part 2 missing):
https://www.idf.il/media/12687/000905135-מנתץ-משגר-כרך-א.pdf
M109 "Rochev" hull+turret electric systems:
https://www.idf.il/media/12205/000907987.pdf
M109 "Doher" hull+turret electric systems:
https://www.idf.il/media/12116/000906042.pdf
M109 "Dores" hull+turret electric systems:
https://www.idf.il/media/12204/000907979.pdf
Merkava 1/2/3/4 special working tools:
https://www.idf.il/media/12702/000908169-כלי-עבודה-ייעודיים-למרכבה-סימן-3-4-בז-1-2.pdf
Magach 7 electric systems:
https://www.idf.il/media/12700/000908142-מגח-7-חשמל.pdf
Magach 7 modernized electric systems:
https://www.idf.il/media/12750/000908363-מגח-7-מערכת-חמשל-חדישה.pdf
That's about it for today folks.
-
It's Hebrew, I know, but it does give a good view on how the Magach 7 looks like from the inside.
This is a spare parts catalog for the Magach 7 electric systems, and it's 363 pages long:
https://www.idf.il/media/12750/000908363-מגח-7-מערכת-חמשל-חדישה.pdf
- Militarysta and Marsh
-
2
-
I still dont understand why they requested to have the cupola if:
1)The original Sabra eliminated the cupola, and it is unique to the M60T.
2)IMI was already offering its WAVE series of RCWS at the time.
-
Can't say I'm not jealous. Israel recently concluded its largest military exercise in the last 19 years, which included 20 brigades and lasted 2 weeks, yet barely any "footage". Nothing worthy among that either. Zapad 2017 only just begun and we're loaded with tons of footage. I don't know if it's OPSEC related, but I'm legitimately pissed!
-
-
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:
Interessting that they still work on anti-KE performance, given that the ADS managed to defeat certain types of (simulated) APFSDS during tests already in 2007 according to German and Swedish sources.
Interesting, but not surprising. RAFAEL has worked on, and even successfully tested, a modified version of Trophy to defeat KE over a decade ago, but much like the ADS it is still developmental.
I'm guessing that despite the technological feasibility, which was proven, the reason for not having this capability is it not being demanded. But then, the company representative says this is a highly demanded capability. So this is the confusing part.
The IDF has only recently raised this demand for the Barak program (Merkava 4 upgrade), after opting for an anti-CE solution for a long time, and the US Army also opted not to test any anti-KE capable APS despite 2 available factors:
1)Iron Fist was offered in its full sized version, not only the IF-LC. Or at the very least, was well known to the program management.
2)RAFAEL has been in the process of refitting Iron Fist launchers to the Trophy system since at least 2014, so the effort should be available to the US, and most of the components should be non-developmental and with high TRL.
Where is this demand they're talking about?
First let's see a demand for any APS at all.
Bonus: I was not aware the German Army had the ADS for the Boxer in mind.
But that's the wrong approach. APS should go to frontline units first - Puma and Leopard. Want to protect expeditionary forces? First give them an IFV Boxer, then talk about beefing up its protection.
Israel did the mistake of not arming its Namers soon enough. I hate to see others repeat our mistakes.
-
Now that IMI has re-structured their website, they re-uploaded the M338 PDF after deleting it, and now it's no longer labeled as "in-development" (as it was for nearly a decade).
http://www.imisystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/120mm-m338.pdf
Fucking NERA everywhere
in Ballistics Science Discussion
Posted
Quite well.