Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ronny

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. wow where did you got that
  2. But it won't hit moving target at that range right?
  3. Yes, but neither does infrared, furthermore, i don't think this is spoon feeding, provide source to what one claim is pretty common accepted rules for proper discussion. Burden of proof lies upon a person making claims I tried to look up laser side lobe but really i can't find anything, unlike radio frequency beam: Laser beam pattern: Radar beam pattern: I am not sure if that because laser beam has no side lobe or it is extremely in significant that it is not mentioned I have a look at several laser designators: Can be carried by infantry, max range 20 km => basically, you can illuminate enemy tank and they can't do anything Beam divergent: 130 micro radiance = 0.007448 degrees. At 20 km the beam spot is 2 meters in diameter, at 8 km the beam spot is only 1 meter in diameter
  4. I checked your source, but it seem that particular occasion was due to insect sticking to the seeker head more than anything else. Furthermore, it is impossible to compare when we only have Hellfire accuracy and nothing else, for example the accuracy of Sabot, Heat and MPHE round. For comparison, the PK of air to air BVR missiles is 55 %, the PK of anti aircraft cannon in Viet Nam war was 3-5%. Yet no one can doubt their danger. So I still think PK of 0.76 is pretty decent ATFLIR IOC in 2002 about 17 years ago, there are many newer system now such as ATP-SE. About spot size, this is what i can find: With beam width of 0.25 mrad or 0.01432394 degree, spot size at 74 km is 18 meters and spot size at 8 km is 2 meters 57E6 and 9M330 both have proximity fuse so they can also attack heli behind terrain masking AIM-9X has both terminal seeker and proximity fuse Never mind the fact that unlike MPHE tank round, these SHORAD all out range AGM-114 significantly and can be guided toward targets. Whereas for MPHE tank round, the helicopter can either stay further than 5 km or higher altitude and they would be effectively outside the engagement envelope . MPHE round are not guided either so i highly doubt that it can engage fast moving helicopter, can tank FCS even lead a helicopter moving at 200 km/h or faster? Non APFSDS round seem to have very significant gravity drop at distance: M820 round need about 4.2 seconds to fly out to 3 km, in that time a helicopter with speed of 200 km/h could have move 222 meters. At 5-8 km, the situation will be even worse for an unguided round. Overall, MPHE tank round seem like pretty pathetic threat to helicopter when comparing to dedicated SHORAD and MANPADs, i do not think MPHE tank round is the reason for NLOS missiles.
  5. I cound be wrong but i think 16 inch cannon round is bigger than Moskit warhead and probably faster too
  6. But the frontal shape charged of Bunkerfaust is far bigger than the follow through warhead, unlike BROACH
  7. Thank you for your thoughtful reply, it answer many of my questions. One thing though 1-What is the range of HE round on tank? Shouldn't it be shorter range than APFSDS since it is slower and draggier? 2- the question about Howitzer round vs modern MBT is because i was thinking, if poor countries can't make tank with proper armor and proper APFSDS rounds, then it probably better for them to design a thin skin armor and 152 mm HE
  8. 2. I have, but i honestly have no idea , they said it is equipped with Zaslon so... https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ukraines-tough-t-84-oplot-m-tank-wont-fight-russia-being-17817 3. was't K5 very good ? beside, APS still quite unpopular now so i guess GL-ATGM will be very useful in the past 4. Let say it hit the middle of the turret front? can the tank survive that Edit: ok you are right, i just realized now that Zaslon has very distinct shape so clearly they don't put it on Oplot (the operation seem pretty lame though)
  9. As far as i know, later Hellfire was equipped with MMW to give multi target engagement along with the Longbow radar plus the Fire and forget capability But i have never seen report of laser designation difficulty for early version of Hellfire though. I mean, if targeting pod on fighter can designate target from 72 km away i would expect helicopter laser designator at least 1/8 as good as that. https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir Beside, there are many long range weapons with SAL guidance: for example SPEAR, Brimstone II, AGM-65, JAGM, SDB II ..etc so I really skeptical that laser designation is problematic at merely 8 km Regarding the switch to NLOS missiles, i don't think the reason is MBT's MPHE. There are others threat to helicopter which are far far more dangerous to helicopter than tanks, for example: SHORAD such as Tor-m1 or Pantsir-S1. Compare to their missiles, the capability of MBT's MPHE is rather pathetic. Also what if we use something like this: Any way, about full size ATGM, there isn't really a fix definition i think, so when you said full size atgm, i just instantly think about F-16, A-10 weapons. What was the PK of AGM-65 anyway? i thought it got enough power to penetrate turret front of M1?
  10. 1- I got that if a tank which used LAHAT is only 2-3 km away from enemy then sure its enemy can retaliate with an APFSDS round, which is much faster and harder to defend. However, i can't see how that could be suicide if you use LAHAT to engage enemy tank from 6-8 km away? yes you have to illuminate target for the whole duration, so what? if enemy tank have no ATGM then they will have no way to retaliate . How is it any different from an AH-64 launching Hellfire at enemy tank? a helicopter have negligible armor yet they can be fairly effective tank hunter http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-114.html 2- I mentioned Maverick because you said damage by 155 mm hitting the turret is no worse than a full size ATGM. AGM-65 is a full size ATGM. AGM-65 was originally an anti armor missile with 125 lbs shaped charge warhead: AGM-65A, AGM-65B, AGM-65C, AGM-65D all use shaped charge warhead, the 300 lbs warhead only integrated in AGM-65E, AGM-65F and AGM-65G. I don't think mentioning AGM-65 is retarded though, it was a very popular anti tank weapon of F-16, F-4 and A-10 Though, I am quite curious why you call the shaped charge variant low energy and sad, 56 kg HEAT is still pretty massive is it not?
  11. 1- Do you have any additional documents about BROACH warhead? 2- But how can it form blast wave in one direction only?
  12. 3- How about LAHAT? 4-I think a frontal hit by a full size ATGM such as AGM-65 likely wreak the tank as well
  13. 1- I saw it here: https://defensepoliticsasia.com/nera-understanding-non-explosive-reactive-armour/ NERA seem to operate in the same manner as common ERA: 2- As far as i know Oplot tank has Zaslon hard kill protection T-55 was equipped with Drozd T-72 and T-80 are equipped with Arena T-90 seem to have nothing? T-14 will get Afghanit 3- How about T-80, T-84 Oplot, T-90, T-99, Type 96 and even future T-14 ? beside as i understand it APDS round lose significant penetrating power at long range, at range greater than 3 km, it is very hard to penetrate frontal armor of MBT, whereas the penetrating capability of ATGM is range independence. 4- If the round hit the turret front, wouldn't the explosion fragments always damage or penetrate the frontal upper hull, which is extremely thin? i heard the upper glacis of M1 is only 30-40 mm thick 5- It seem pretty capable, able to cut APDS round into dozens smaller pieces and what not
  • Create New...