Mighty_Zuk

These are all old variants.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   They used stocks of avaliable ammunition to fire just for this show. We should be glad they used something real instead of some kind of training round.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   So Russian army will fight and were fighting only in Syrias? Only against modern MBTs? Are you sure that HEAT rounds are as accurate at 4+ km as GL-ATGMs?

The reference threat for Russia should always be NATO, just as any military should use a peer threat as a reference point. But my point was not about Russia fighting in Syria constantly, or even in battlefields that are similar to Syria. For that it would pitch those upgrades for potential export customers, not for domestic consumption.

Against a peer threat, with a modern MBT, those missiles become even less effective. 

HEAT rounds should be accurate out to even more than 4km. Part of the training of a gunner in Israel includes the firing of a HE-MP shell out to 5km. If you can do it from a Merkava, I don't see why you can't do it with a T-90 with modernized sights. Pretty much anywhere, firing a HE-MP shell to 5km seems like a standard. 

A HEAT shell would ideally have better ballistic traits than a HE-MP.

Of course it won't be as accurate as an ATGM, but it's not like it's terribly inaccurate.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

"They" are working on 4th gen ATGM, called VTRK.

Isn't VTRK very specifically NOT an ATGM? It's supposed to be a division level precision strike weapon like a glorified Spike NLOS, only out to 100km instead of 30km.

Due to the range, the Spike NLOS is no longer used as an ATGM, rather as a precision strike weapon with a general purpose warhead (Anti Personnel/Anti Material) against high value targets.

When I'm talking ATGMs, I mean something that you'd carry on your back in pieces, or on an AFV. 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Well, if we already have stocks of those things why not to use them? Especially if they can extend effective range against most probable types of tanks that our army may meet.

That makes sense, but missiles have a much shorter shelf life than tanks, and I'm afraid they'd produce new missiles of the same variant, or new SACLOS missiles, and that's just wrong.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Exactly same as on T-90MS from many years ago.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Nothing new here. Even T-72B1U for Nicaragua had them, it is kind of standart equipment now.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Yes, original contract stated for this (article was posted in this thread), known information for many months by now.

This post wasn't written for you. It was written for the less informed who wanted to watch the video but still understand something. I wrote everything I deemed note-worthy in points. Not everyone here can read and understand Russian like us.

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   This is show for people with "housewife" level of knowledge of military tech. Sometimes it feels like you are posting while drunk, i'm too lazy to find again an old Soviet training video showing T-64A gunner's station and ammunition selection system.

Of course I know they have an ammunition selection option. I've seen it. I was just mocking the way they said it.

From the video:

• Engine is more powerful (don't claim by how much).
• Turret construction is "unique", unlike the serially produced version (evident in photos).
• Gun is the same old 2A46M, but fitted with MRS (Muzzle Reference System).
• New laser warning system.
• 360 degree vision provided by a mast-mounted system located on the left side of the turret by the rear.
• Closed internet connection.
• Driver's rear-view camera.
• They still don't know how to build bore evacuators.
• Ammunition selection system (so they couldn't select the ammunition before that?).
• T-90M tanks will also be newly-built, not only conversions.
• Provisions for an APS.

5 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

 

So 9M133M is only an imagination? 

It's a 2nd gen SACLOS missile.

Its "fire and forget" is not an actual F&F mode of the missile. It's just an auto-tracker fitted on the launcher that allows the gunner to do other things in the meantime. Upon launching, the vehicle (yeah, you can't have it for the foot soldiers) must either remain stationary, or maintain LoS to the target. Dropping (on foot) or driving away (on vehicle) to cover is not possible with the Kornet-EM.

A proper 3rd gen, thus F&F missile, would have the tracking technology fitted INSIDE the missile. And that is just the very bare minimum a "modern" ATGM must have.

30 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   GL-ATGMs would be usefull, as our troops are more likely to face countries with Soviet-level of AFV tech. Place for "Arena-like" APS is there, T-90M can accept it, question is what MoD would like to do.

The T-90M had its turret redesigned to a significant enough extent. I assume it can now use longer rounds such as the Vacuum-1 developed for the T-14, so I have no idea why they chose to fire the Mango. Perhaps to avoid showing the Vacuum-1 shells and to test backwards compatibility.

So if they'll be riding these things in Syria or other similar battlefields, the GLATGM with a range of only 5km and limited to LoS, will only extend their engagement range against MBTs by, what, 1km?

What really prevents them from firing a standard HEAT shell out to 5km away?

Pure corruption has controlled much of the acquisition programs in the Soviet and later Russian army. The usage of 3 different families of tanks with an abundance of variants for each, is a prime example. But the ATGM thing is also one.

They don't develop a 3rd or 4th gen ATGM not because they can't. If they can develop solid AAMs and cruise missiles they sure as hell can develop an ATGM as well. Just for some reason someone seems to have an interest in preventing development of such a missile. And the defense companies are state-owned after all, so they won't develop stuff as private ventures to pitch them to the army.

The use of a GLATGM is 90% stupidity, maybe 10% practicality. 

3 hours ago, Sovngard said:

 

Source ?

I take back my earlier statement. I've been talking from memory, and I remember hearing about possible issues of cracks as an issue to be solved in the development phase, which was indeed supposedly solved via longer recoil and improved suspension (hydropneumatic).

3 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

If I'm a member of the Naval infantry and the choice is a Sprut or nothing? I'll take the Sprut. It can also fire the 125mm GLATGMs that the Russians have.  I don't really know how effective they are against tanks, but a 125mm diameter HEAT warhead is nothing to sneeze at. 

 

I'm hardly saying it's the be all and end all, but it gives you a bit more punch than a BMD-3

 

GLATGMs are ineffective against most targets when compared with standard HEAT, APFSDS, or HE-MP shells, unless they are 3rd gen or above, or otherwise have any form of NLOS capability.

Since Russia does not yet have any 3rd gen ATGMs, it makes little sense to use current ones.

The Sprut can fire standard APFSDS used in MBTs, but from what I've heard so far, it does so with a great risk of cracking its hull and turret.

You're right. I was looking at a couple different vehicles while writing this. The Ze'ev is definitely not an MRAP, and its protective qualities are limited to small arms fire only. 

It is very useful for the West Bank and patrols here and there, but overall it's not something the IDF wants to equip its maneuvering forces with. It goes to regional units.

On 2/21/2019 at 5:42 PM, SPARTAN ARMED said:

What happen to the hybrid mrap ! and i see pics that tzahal use sufa jeeps inside cities palestinian cities it will be more safe with a golan mrap.

The Sufa is used in non-threatening areas, but you wont see it driving a lot in hostile cities.

You may occasionally see it driving around Gaza with crowd dispersal means though.

In the MRAP role, the IDF so far has the Ze'ev (Wolf), seen in the 4th picture.

Currently the IDF is looking for an MRAP in the 8 ton category as a 3rd line supplement to the Namer and Eitan.

Search for such an MRAP began somewhere around 2014, but progress is slow because the main focus right now is on the Eitan, turreted Namer, and the new howitzer, all costly projects that are developed simultaneously, but with no budget hikes to compensate for it properly.

So it's possible we won't see any meaningful progress on MRAPs until the end of 2020.

The MRAP you see in the 1st photo, taken from a recent video from the maintenance facilities of the IDF, is not an indicator of meaningful progress or an intent to build it en mass. Even as far back as 2014 the IDF was testing a Wildcat MRAP by IMI in MEDEVAC configuration, with no decision on purchase so far.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

   Soldier inside of some sort dug in position and with body armor/helmet could have survived this explosion 10 meters away withouth much of problems. Thats why i think Zvezda is not saying thruth about shell being "secret". It is probably old He-frag that was made back in Soviet times for just developed Ainet system for T-80UK (APFSDS that they used in video was Mango, for example). I posted some time ago a pic of newer HE-frag (3OF82 projectile, part of 3VOF128 shot) with ready-to-use fragments, it should be noticeably better. 

 

It doesn't look like it would be really noticeably better. 

I counted 12 rows per side with 7 fragments per row. 2 sides means 24 rows. Some are blocked from view so round it up to 30.

That's 210 fragments going forward. At least half of them will go upwards and above the target, and a considerable amount will go to both sides. 15 hits on a 2-man sized target simulating crouched men, sounds like it's statistically lower than what a 210-frag round would achieve, but not by far. 

Is there any "desirable effect" graph showing the distribution of an ideal/semi-realistic HE-F round over an area? Because the more I talk about it the more I realize I have no idea what am army would consider appropriate these days (though the tech hasn't changed much).

43 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

15 hits in total for whole shield (which is wider than a human) which was around ~10 meters from detonation point.

Which is what you could expect.... from a 40mm AB munition. 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Zvezda says that this is "secret" shell, so possibly they showed "Telnik" programmable HE-Frag.

   It is kind of... not very good. Amount of frag damage at such distance is rather low, IMO.

All I see is 3 minutes of a redcoat playing with a nice stick.

 Love the idea of placing buttons near viewports!

https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/indian-army-accepts-arjun-mk1-a-main-battle-tank-for-service/

India wants another batch of 118 tanks, but not yet in the Mk2 version. It's an Mk 1A version that is an interim "solution".

In an act of protest, I shall do the "nae nae" on India.

Rafael shows its new ROCKS missile in India. Judging by its shape, it's designed to fly a ballistic path.

Nose-mounted optical sensor allows for accurate engagement in GPS-denied environment.

Steering possible via rear fins.

Said to be capable of launching from "significant" ranges outside the protection envelope of land based defense systems. It means we can expect a range that is longer than IMI's Rampage's 150km range, I assume 300-400km is required to deal with the longest range air defense systems currently in service, especially as launching this missile requires high altitude flight.

Its warhead is also said to be suitable for defeating either targets on ground, or targets "deep" underground.

It is additionally capable of engaging moving targets.

Image quality of a thermal visor on the Merkava 4 at 9.5km.

(a member on Otvaga asserts that the thermal visor is green instead of black and white to ease the strain on the eyes, and not a simple night vision device).

12 years between the final demonstration of technologies to fielding the first tank is quite a lot of time. That's about 30% of the life expectancy of a tank.

Plus Syria has plenty of T-72 AND is likely to start taking in modern russian gear as soon as they stabilize.

12 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

T-90M footage

 

Actually impressed for a change.

The commander's station definitely looks quite comfortable even by western standards, and I'm a long time proponent of high prioritization of ergonomics as a cheap way to increase crew efficiency.

The turret also looks different, but it may be just the paint scheme.

Leaves plenty to be desired, but I still like it a lot.

21 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Elbit and Rafael might bid as a subcontractor for certain components in NGCV. It's hard to see the US developing a new heavy MBT anytime soon for a variety of reasons.

The need for a new MBT as replacement for the M1 has been identified a while ago, and intentions to create a replacement based on OMFV technologies have also been declared.

Feel free to continue this discussion at the US AFV thread and ask other members who keep track over these things.

4 hours ago, MRose said:

 

Doesn't that support the vehicle is supposed to fight dismounts (like the Terminator), instead of serving as a MBT replacement?

As I previously said, there is a lot of commonality between the Carmel/Kaliya and the NGCV program.

Both are tasked to create some AFV that adds all these new ideas.

The type of AFV (APC/IFV/MBT/recon etc etc) is dependent on what the IDF and US Army think is most urgent for them at the moment. For the US it may be a Bradley replacement, and for the IDF it could be a medium IFV to replace Namers or an MBT to replace Merkavas.

Whatever the first version they choose, it's supposed to be a technological baseline for every other AFV type they field. 

If plans don't change, the M1A3 development will coincide with a certain phase of the OMFV's development, to draw on these technologies.

Similarly, the IDF plans to use the Carmel program as a baseline for an MBT program to replace the Merkava.

The vehicle shown in the video is nothing more than a show of a collection of concepts. It is hardly applicable as-is in modern combat between peers.

5 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

I personally think that they added 2 RCWS simply because they already want 2 independent sights (current AFVs only have 1 at best), so attaching an RCWS with is really cheap and simple. This way both crewmembers get a sight of their own, and the ability to engage targets independently of who uses the main gun.

It can also be used to emulate the concept of Bright Arrow without burdening the interceptors/launchers themselves with the added weight of an RCWS.

Bright Arrow is basically a derivative of the Iron Fist LC in which an MG is attached to each launcher, and fires a burst immediately after the launcher fires. This way, in short range engagements it has a very high chance of eliminating the personnel who fires at the vehicle. At the cost, of course, of traverse speed of the launcher and thus increasing its reaction time.

Eitan's first prototype still rocking it, this time seemingly testing its run-flat system and a new driver aid system, which I assume is an ultrasonic device for distance measurement.

Keep in mind folks that the MT883 engine is what allowed the IDF to finally get the Merkava's frontal hull armor from piss poor on the Mark 3 to rock solid in the Mark 4.

The Namer already got armor as thick as that of the Merkava 4's at the front, but could further be enhanced.

I am inclined to believe, however, that the AVDS engines are no longer supported, or just improlerly supported. 

A 9-man squad is already achieved in the Namer, and the troop compartment is relatively very spacious.

37 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

What would be the advantage of the fuel-air ordinance over the line charges (as seen on the M1150)? 

A couple thermobaric (fuel-air) rockets can cover a fairly wide area relative to a line charge, are very cheap and easy to make, and can be carried in large numbers on a single vehicle.

And I'm not sure about the following one but I believe they can exert substantially more downwards pressure to defeat AT mines. Will have to check this one.