Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

heretic88

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. heretic88
    I bet they werent too successful. Probably there wasnt anything better. Military vehicles are totally unsuitable for conversion to excavators, wheel loaders, dozers, etc. Main problem: the presence of suspension. (also the lack of durability) Btw, if Im not mistaken, some Jagdpanzer 38ts were also converted to some auxiliary mining vehicles or light tractors, I saw some photos about them.
  2. heretic88
    The question, is it possible for the SPYDER, Sky Sabre or IRIS-T SLM to be spread out like the NASAMS? Also, how many EW radars do these systems have? And what about EO sensors? As for ballistic missile defense, neither of these are suitable. Even the S-3/400 and Patriot only have limited capabilities, only a bit more than protecting themselves. If you need a serious BMD system, you need something like the THAAD or the israeli Arrow.
  3. heretic88
    We (Hungary) also bought the NASAMS/ESSM recently. It is an excellent homeland air defense system. In my opinion, the best in the world, together with the russian S-350. Skyranger is very nice too, our government is also interested in it, but its not decided yet.
  4. heretic88
    Well, your points abut the MIM-72 are 100% valid and I agree with them. But these things arent hard to fix. - the IRIS-T SLS Mark III also has only 4 ready to fire missiles, so you also need a dedicated TZM. Yes, it has a slight, (and irrelevant) advantage over turreted systems where you need to lift the missiles, but its not a big deal. Put a little crane on the TZM, and you are good to go, you can put any missile in containers, weight isnt an issue anymore. - radar is not advantageous on a short range system, reveals position to the enemy, and also can be jammed, and makes it more expensive. Passive sensors + a link to an air defense network is better. This is where the absence of a rotating turret is again a horrible disadvantage. In case of the system being jammed, what are the operators doing? No optical sight to use, not even the missile seeker. System rendered useless. - Im quite surprised that the Chaparel couldnt fire on the move, or at least from short stops with launcher in firing position. You sure it wasnt possible? For Strela-1 and Strela-10, firing from short halts were definitely possible, the gunner didnt have to switch to travel position. Yes Im aware that the graphic is not to scale, but the engagement zone has realistic proportions based on angle. There was another illustration with more detailed description about the AIM-9X in LOAL mode, but sadly I cannot find it anymore. But basically, it said the same as this one.
  5. heretic88
    No, they arent too large and heavy. AIM-9 was actually used in an air defence system in the past, the MIM-72 Chaperell This new system is still terrible. Only an idiot would design such system. VLS (cold launch) is desirable, but not necessary, since rotating turret was invented since ages Discarding it is pure laziness. As you can see from this image, even if the target approaching +/- 45 degrees to the launcher, the max range is only around 70% of the theoretically possible. At 90 degrees, it is below 60%. Yes I know its AIM-9X, but the same reduction applies to IRIS-T too. So this means, that the vehicle has only around +/- 90 degrees useable firing arc. Nowhere near the required 360. The IRIS-T missile is excellent, (high resistance to CM, very high maneuverability) but this design totally wastes its potential. As the angle increases, it gets easier to defeat it kinematically. And we didnt even talk about the high parameter limitations... The carrier vehicle is not ideal, but more or less acceptable. (I'd vote for the Boxer or maybe the Tpz Fuchs btw) But the fixed launch platform isnt.
  6. heretic88
    This is horrible. Never seen such poorly designed platform. First, the base vehicle has relatively limited offroad capabilities. Second, and this is the main problem, the fixed launcher. Its idiotic beyond belief. Yes the missile has high maneuverability. But even if it needs a 90 degree turn, it already wastes lots of propellant, severely limiting its range. Absolutely moronic idea.
  7. heretic88
    Oh not at all, not at all. This is a totally viable option. Just one example, from the western side: The MIM-104 Patriot initially lacked this capability. In 1986, one of the main addition of the PAC-1 upgrade was the HOJ mode for the missile against the increasingly more effective soviet jamming technology. In the vietnam war, the main problem was that in large B-52 formations, each plane carried powerful jammers, and all planes used them at the same time. So, on the indicators, the operator saw not a jamming "band" that was relatively easy to aim at the middle, but the whole screen was full of noise, it wasnt possible to determine the individual aircrafts. This worked brilliantly with old, mechanically scanned antennas, like the Dvina/Desna/Volhov and the Neva. However, the later systems all used monopulse radars, even old stuff like the Vega and the Krug, and they could precisely track the jamming source. The problem was not that the launcher needs constant LOS to the target. Back then, they didnt have autotrackers, so a CLOS system required lots and lots of training to use effectively even against straight flying targets. Thats why these systems were horribly ineffective, and most designers avoided this guidance method. Why the british loved it? Good question. Anyway, this isnt a problem anymore for both the RBS-70NG and the Sosna.
  8. heretic88
    I see two problems here: First, the dazzler jamming can be filtered out based on the wavelenght. Second, as I mentioned it numerous times, the presence of HOJ mode. All the FCS needs to do, is aim at the middle of the jamming source. This is not a new thing. Back then in the vietnam war, single aircraft could be shot down even if they used noise jamming. All the operators needed to do is to aim at the dead centre of the jamming signal. Of course this was rare occasion, because americans knew this well, so if all the planes (typically B-52s) in the formation used jamming, the operators were unable to discern the individual jamming bands on the indicators. In fact, the IRIS-T missile already employs DIRCCM, it simply guides itself with the aid of the jamming laser. (and if Im not mistaken the Verba is also resistant, but it uses different methods) It can affect the engagement, but I do not think this is a serious problem, especially for a short ranged missile. If it wasnt a big deal for the RBS-70, why would it be for the Sosna? In fact, SACLOS (or even MCLOS) was quite fetishized by the brits, for example there was the Blowpipe, Javelin, Rapier, and the recent Starstreak.
  9. heretic88
    These arent new technologies. SAAB also does not disclose the FCS of RBS-70 (which is somewhat simpler than Sosna), but they clearly state that the system is unjammable. This still works like a DIRCM, but on a larger area (and I have to say, quite smart design!). This still cant affect guidance since the receiver unit is on the rear of the missile. Anyway. Here is the site of KB Tochmash, it is horribly translated to english, but still has useful information: "8. EOCS has increased jamming immunity due to using information channels with narrow fields of sight and application of special signals processing algorithms in the automatic control unit of target acquisition and tracking considering the target signatures. Besides, it is impossible to distort laser spot beam rider guidance or to flash an optoelectronic sensor of a flying missile by the similar laser beam." Additionally, there is a semiautomatic mode, when the system is controlled by the operator (just like RBS-70). http://kbtochmash.com/press-eng/articles-eng/articles-eng_4.html I highly doubt. Around 20-25 secons is the maximum time for engagement, and it is the absolute worst case for the SAM. If the target is approaching, or if the system launches the missile in the NEZ, the time is considerably shorter. Average speed of the missile is 600m/s, thats 6km for 10 seconds. Such short time is enough only for some very basic evasive maneuver, nothing more. And remember, these missiles are quite hard to evade. For the old 9M311 of the Tunguska, max overload of the missile is 18gs. To give some idea, the old 3M9 missile of the Kub was capable of 15g maneuvers. In practice, this was notoriously hard to evade for strike aircrafts, loaded with weapons. And even if the aircraft is successful, its mission is still over, so the SAM did its work.
  10. heretic88
    A modern medium range system can do that too. Additionally, these have real kill zones, long range systems have only suppression zones. S-300/400 arent obsolete because of long range. Its main problems: - no 360 degree firing arc - the system is not deployable over a wide area, because it need a dedicated fire control radar, and it makes very vulnerable. - obsolete guidance method (TVM) - no redundancy - most of its capabilities are only theoretical. - gargantuan costs. Price to value ratio is extremely low.
  11. heretic88
    This is all true, but you should always make the enemy's job harder with every possible method, for example, camouflage or choosing the right travel routes, etc. Not really. Now lets look at what options the attacked plane has: Jamming - out of question, obviously. Chaff - same Flares - imaging seekers of the latest IR guided missiles are already capable of discriminate the target and even pyrophoric decoys, by analysing enrgy distribution change. Another method, is checking the deceleration of the flares. The Sosna FCS definitely has these capabilities. DIRCM - it targets the missile seeker. Since there is no seeker, it is useless. (Element of Vitebsk system is a DIRCM) Also big surprise - the RBS-70 and Starstreak, both laser beam riders, are also effectively immune to any countermeasure. Yes, theoretically a dazzler might work. But we have two problems with it. 1; if the FCS has a HOJ mode, it is contraproductive. 2; name just one plane that has such dazzler! Why would speed affect it? I didnt read any serious speed limitation for RBS-70, why would Sosna have it? Sorry but this is ridiculous. Tthe target has no time for that. Whole engagement is 20-25 seconds max. This affects other short range systems too. And btw that is why there are layered air defense systems.
  12. heretic88
    1, yes I know S-3/400 are different. But conceptually, yes it is obsolete, anachronism from the cold war. For the gargantuan costs, you get surprisingly little capabilities. A single CM salvo, and millions of dollars went into the drain. 2, of course, but this is true for any kind of vehicle. But enemy reconaissance cant separate it from other vehicles based on only radar or IR signature. That is the point. The enemy has no idea that it is a SAM, they cant pinpoint it like a radar based system. The Sosna can appear anywhere. You want to find it? Good luck... 3, Yes it is true. But even if you detect the launch, it may be already too late. Radar jamming, chaff, flares, DIRCM, all utterly useless against it. The only countermeasure is trying to outmaneuver it. Which is very, very, very hard even for an 5th gen fighter. So no, the Sosna is not obsolete, in fact the absolute best in its class.
  13. heretic88
    Now this is what I call an ultramodern SAM system. Russia should advertise this, not old, obsolete junk like S-300/400. Because Sosna uses only passive sensors, it is impossible to detect until missile launch, and thanks to guidance method, impossible to jam, there isnt any countermeasure that is effective against it. And if the attacked plane has no missile launch warning system, it is completely f*cked. The first sign of the attack is the detonation of the warhead.
  14. heretic88
    Btw, why wasnt the Shilka adopted in the czechslovak army? It was a true masterpiece in its time, one of the best, most effective SPAAG ever designed.
  15. heretic88
    Just at the start of the video: look at the muzzle of the gun when firing. Vibrates far less than an unsupported 2A72. That is why I think that the rumor about the 2A72 in a BMP-3 is more accurate than in other platforms, is true.
  16. heretic88
    Yes, thats exactly 4 rpm. Slightly higher than 2S3M(3.5). But the Msta is hard to beat (7-8) with the mechanism the Dana has. There is a video on youtube that shows it firing, loading time is around 13-14 seconds, so I think the maximum can be around 5 rpm. Similar to the 2S5 Giatsint (5-6)
  17. heretic88
    Or in other words, ukrainian propaganda... Take everything with a grain of salt. For example, the data about the rate of fire of different guns is a blatant lie. For a single 2S19, sustained rate of fire is 100 rounds in the first hour (official data from manual!)... For a 6 gun battery, its 300 rounds in 30 minutes... thats far higher than the pathetic 90 they require. Even the good old Akatsia is capable of firing 75 rounds/hr. Again, official data from manual. And I highly, HIGHLY doubt the claim that the FCS is 30-35% more accurate. Dont get me wrong, Im sure that the modernized Dana is a very nice piece of equipment. I just dont believe what the ukrainian officials say, telling the truth is not their virtue... I even have questions about their claim to be able to produce their own ammo... And the license built Tatra trucks... Well, that means only one thing, Kraz plant is dead, and they cant produce anything on their own.
  18. heretic88
    I do not think that the Gepard is particularly useful against them. In fact, no existing SPAAG in service is effective vs drones. You need one of the following: lasers, mini missiles, large caliber guns with guided, or the very least programmable munition.
  19. heretic88
    This is idiotic... Never put a muffler on a good sounding diesel! Never!
  20. heretic88
    Isnt it possible that they confused it with the T-80BVM which is indeed protected by Relikt?
  21. heretic88
    Well, against USA or Russian levels of enemy, yes. But we have good relations with both of them. Our potential enemies have no EW assets that are powerful, (or actually useful, they have nothing that can jam the P-18) enough.
  22. heretic88
    Yes, and this is the only real effective way of operating systems like the S-3/400. The real problem with this, is the massive costs. Only a few countries are able to afford this. Russia, China, USA. I cant think about any others. Even then, the only real role of long range SAMs is just to force the attacker to lower altitudes. Shooting down aircraft is completely out of question. This is why these systems are conceptually obsolete, you get surprisingly little capabilities for the insane cost of all the infrastructure you need to use them. And if somebody tries to use them stand alone (not in an IADS environment), it is ridiculously easy to deal with these. A while ago I thought that Russia made a huge mistake of selling the S-400 to Turkey. Now I think differently. Turkey gained nothing with the S-400. They spent gargantuan amounts of money, and they got an ineffective, already obsolete system, because the S-400 is incompatible with any western IADS. Of course, it is good for them for yelling at the greeks "we have 250km range SAMs", but thats all.
  23. heretic88
    Damn, this english word "battery" is so problematic... For both the S-3/400 and Patriot. Or all kinds of SAM system actually. Partriot organisation structure is like this: You have a battalion hq, with an ICC (information and coordination center). This ICC commands 6 firing units (FU), and is linked to other battalions, AWACS, or radiotechnical units, but it has no radars on its own. The FU is what we can call a "battery", it has an ECS (engagement control station), generators, launchers and a single MPQ-53 radar, for both target acquistion and tracking. If this single radar is lost, then the FU is useless. No redundancy here. For the S-300P, it is a bit more complicated. Regimental hq has two main vehicles, a PBU(command post) and an RLO(main EW radar). RLO is the only such radar in the whole regiment! This Hq controls 4 divisions, all of which consist of an RPN fire control radar, a specialized NVO low altitude EW radar*, and 4 fire sections with 3 launchers each. We may call the division as "battery". So basically this means, that the loss of the RLO means that the whole regiment loses its own general EW capability! Yes there are 4 NVO radars, but they are exclusively used for low altitude scanning, they have no other role. The RPN has an emergency scan mode, but it is extremely inefficient, and slow. And again, loss of an RPN means the loss of the whole division, no redundancy. The other RPNs of the regiment cant take its place. * it is often mentioned that the S-300 is capable of "shoot and scoot" in 5 minutes. While it is true for most of the elements of the system, the NVO has a set up time measured in hours! S-300V has similar problems, but lets not get into it, thats an army air defense system.
  24. heretic88
    Not at all. Even old soviet radars fit perfectly to the picture. Radiotechnical units are linked with a central command center, and not with the NASAMS batteries. The FDC needs a link to the command only. But it is quite important that NASAMS is radically different than existing, conceptually obsolete systems like S-300/400 and Patriot. It is already very effective even with its small Sentinel radars, but of course if the FDC gets target data from elsewhere, it is even better. It is obviously best if they get that data with a compatible datalink system, but there is even possibility to get it from simple radio. Also, batteries are networked, and communicate with each other. From the point of view of an attacking aircraft, a NASAMS system is the worst nightmare of the pilots. Finding and destroying such overhyped, expensive and obsolete systems like the S-300/400 and Patriot is not hard at all. If you know where the radars are, you can be certain that the launchers are there too, so you know the engagement range, and can plan the attack accordingly. And if you destroy any of the radars, then game over. NASAMS is entirely different matter. A pilot never knows where the launhcers are, so he has absolutely no idea where is the engagement zone of the system. The missiles can arrive from any direction, and suddenly, since there is no vulnerable fire control radar in this system. And even if the enemy destroys the Sentinel radars, the NASAMS may still be fully operational because it is networked. Russian S-350 also has similar capability. These systems are the future, not old stuff like the S-3/400 and Patriot.
  25. heretic88
    I agree, but not entirely. As you surely know, of the 3 Objekt-781 prototypes, one was different, and had a turret with similar armament to the BMP-3 (2A70+2A72+PKT). Still, this was rejected, and the twin 30mm turret version was selected for service in the army. Sadly I do not know why, but Im sure there were reasons for that. But all in all, both Objekt-781 versions were superior to UVZ's BMPT, especially in terms of firepower. My opinion, is that the whole point of such specialized vehicle is to be able to engage as many targets as possible in urban combat, and in a wide arc around it. The BMPT is not very good in this regard, it can engage 3 targets at the same time, and only one with its main armament. The Objekt-781 can engage 5, (6 for the rejected version!) and it can deal with two totally separate targets with the autocannons. Much harder to lure it into an ambush or trap. Just imagine, the vehicle travels along a street, the autocannon turrets can fire at the buildings to the left and right at the same time (even high elevations), the two grenade launchers can do the same, or look for enemies appearing in front, and finally, the rear NSVT turret can watch the rear (obviously this is much less useful, but not a bad thing to have) UVZ probably liked the idea of the two autocannons, but they totally failed to understand the reason why they were in separate turrets in the 781. I even dare to say that they failed to understand the whole concept, proof is the export BMPT-72, which is a totally useless miserable piece of junk. An upgraded T-55 has far, far higher combat value than that, in any imaginable situation.
×
×
  • Create New...