mr.T

Was always just a question of time when someone comes up with Jammer for APS radars.

https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2021/06/blog-post.html

Patent drawing for UGV ATGM, Jammer team-up

 A method for the integrated use of robotic weapons of fire destruction and electronic suppression of the active protection system of armored vehicles.

All the east european Rusophobes seem to think TB2 is some sort of magical anti russian kyptonite that could actually fight Russian army ! Based on experience against rag tag 3rd world militias with limited or no AD

Nagmachon literal semi mobile pillbox, i just don't know why they didn't just pour concrete pilbox on the cheap.

More likely cut on waterjet as laser would anneal the material on the cut and its also quite thick plate to cut .

19 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

https://www.facebook.com/Technology.IDF/posts/3041064092794002

Some of these israeli projects fully qualify for the Jihadi workshop section , , box welled on top pf a tank hull.

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/merkava-4-damaged-during-training.html

Merkava is not something others wan't to emulate, i don't think Israelis convinced of its top dog either , there are considerable trade offs due to its layout . It helps if your known and potential enemies have nothing approaching a modern tank , and only have modern missiles so protection can be tailored towards that. Protected volume alone indicates its not the best armoured tank out there, not to mention it lacks the safe ammo storage of M1 

Armata while its new its not unique and similar layouts have been experimented with before but it likely only now that optronics are sophisticated enough to replace glass optics and make it work.

M1 Tank Test bed was kinda same base concept to Armata . 

Which tanks have transmissions or final drives in front? Last mbt with front drive and rear engine was Sherman.

Powerpack size in western MBT is close to 8m3 so its hard to pack in front , and engine doesn't provide as much protection as armor can. Front engine also makes the hull higher in front , needing more armor to protect the increased volume vs the typical powerpack hump in the lightly protected back.

Given the volume and weight i have my doubts that Merkava is coparatively well protected,

Sadko Next seems very capable and we have seen some used here in EU for fireman trucks , hope they someday get the GAZ Veper Next into production

Jaguar hardly seems to be low cost or maximum efficiency driven , its seems to be packing all the bells and whistles they could add. 

Still 30 to many to add 48 of Boxer to the mix , and note these 48 Boxer are more expensive than at the time whole 135 Patria AMVs , i would think purchasing the rest of now Polish AMVs would be much more sensible.

306mio Eur for 48 Boxer vs € 278 million for 135  Patria AMV , of course most of the AMV were rather basic with only 12.7 HMG or 40mm grenade launcher and only 30 or so were planed to be armed with turrets packing 30mm and ATGMs or Nemo Mortar

Boxer program for Slovenia makes absolutely no sense as they already bought Patria AMVs , adding another type to the mix is crazy not to mention Boxer is just about the most expensive option out there 

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

Whats the difference with the original Vikhr?

From what i can tell they were testing some improvements in targeting when firing at close targets

Better hope this is total ,bullishit and no one is realy looking at developing an airframe with optional VTOL configuration

No one needs VTOL  . 

With a weak propulsion setup like X-32 , you would need a much more powerfull engine than Al41 to get any useful payload. X-32 coudn't even lift of.

Light single-engine fighter of the Russian Federation

Single engine gen5 is something that is missing on world market , and hope they stick to same engine as for Su-57 , which is enough for  plane to be up to 30% larger/heavier than Gripen .

Indeed 

Ole standard loadout for T72/90 had ammo all over , hard not to hit any in case of penetration. Literaly charges and rounds everywhere .Not to mention the extra ammo is actually for reloading into carusel so its used last.

The big issue with the layout is that turrets are increasingly unbalanced ,so they are actually forced to make bustles at some time as armouring grows. T90 now has a  bustle , T90MS

Still has some rounds outside the carusell but less than used to be the case in T72 .

As for unsafe , only tank in service that has ammo storage really safely handled is M1 , every other tank has plenty of rounds inside the fighting compartment without any separation from the crew. 

Carousel ammo load should be reasonably safe from harm but the additional charges and rounds that used to be placed in every nook and cranny on t72 were likely the ones going boom. With T90MS they moved much of that into the bustle.

Turret design with wide cheeks is great in terms of armor protection  to weight ratio, cheek armor protects in the frontal 60° while other turrets need bunch of side armor to equal that protection.

While common rail can and has been retrofited to engines ,question is if these engines are good candidates to make this worth while

That front engined BMP-3M with unmanned turret would more or less come close . 

Both Koreans and Turks have issues with the engine for the new tank , and it doesnt seem like Ukrainan engine is going to solve turk engine problems,

I never suggested a bomb armed bomber but a missile armed one as well.

PAK-DA will be subsonic missiler as well ,So lets say its something like B2 with same cruise missile payload as Tu-160  , stand off range remains the same ,but adding stealth means it could remain undetected much closes to AD zones.

Subsonic flying wing is way more aerodynamically efficient than Tu-160 so having greater range than Tu-160 would be no problem, although i expect the plane to be actually much smaller and lighter than B2 or Tu-160 , with 4 non afterburning AL-41 engines 

Russia unlike US is not a global intervention force so has much different requirements , Tu-160 speed is of little use against any AD its also very expensive and complex for given payload compared to subsonic airplane. Missiler stays out of harms way by having stand off weapons not by being fast. At longer stand of ranges even less than perfectly stealthy plane can remain hidden whole mission while Tu 160 is on radars 400km-600km away. Only mission that might benefit from speed is the anti shipping role of Tu-22 but even that might in future better be handled with drones.

There is really no point in making more of these , rather invest in subsonic but stealthy PAK DA

They were shooting at 400$ drones and missiles are quite useless(at least the radar and IR guided ones, conmand and laser guided are better )  no to mention expensive against these threats . Guns are the way to go , preferably big guns to get some more range , than you need some firecotrol that could handle these at extreme gun ranges. I  imagine  AI processing pixels in video feeds will prove usefull soon .

These drones are definetly an ideal target for lasers. 

The surplus Gepard used for test in Qatar in 2018 blew up one of the cannon breches before they even shot a first drone  then had turret drives cause problems etc, so shootign was done on one cannon only , Search radar was useless and targets were engaged at 1000-400m hardly usefull range to protect much in terms of infrastructure. To combat the drones most of legarcy SPAAGs will need some upgrades to make them more useful .