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

Ronny

Excommunicated
  • Posts

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ronny

  1. 8 hours ago, N-L-M said:

    Aight

    @Ronny

    I'm just gonna put this here so everyone can see it.

    Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Your SNR is a flat 0, you post nonsense and start useless threads in which you argue inane bullshit and just in general waste people's valuable time with questions a good 5 minutes googling would answer.

    Your posts aren't even up to basic shitposting standards, let alone gudpoasting. Kindly meet the standard or you'll soon find yourself unable to post at all.

     

    Carl Sagan once said: " There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question"

    And he was an astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist...etc , overall, pretty knowledgeable guy. Arguably far more knowledgeable than anyone here can even dream to be, yet he don't oppose the act of asking "stupid" question.

    Personally, i would rather ask "stupid" question than pretend to know something i don't and stay ignorance. 

    Besides, how exactly do you define a useless thread? after all we are all here to discuss about aviation topics, some may be interesting to you , some may not, but overall we discuss it because it is our hobby , that it. Not like any of us gonna use the knowledge here to earn money or design something, so in essence: all thread are equally useless-useful.

    Secondly, i don't force anyone to go into my thread, nor did i made so many threads that they block the whole first, second, third pages of this forum, so in essence, if anyone hate or dislike my question, they can simply click in another thread instead and discuss what they like. They don't have to waste their time at all. 

    Finally, if my thread is really that terrible and useless then i think @Collimatrix would have simply delete the thread and ban me since he is the Admin and all that, yet it is still interesting enough that he participated in the discussion.

     

  2. 2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

    @Ronny Ramlaen has somewhat touched on that issue but didnt explain it so I will.

     

    You can take it as a rule of thumb that the faster these missiles are in the first stages, they farther and higher they need to get. I repeat, farther and higher they NEED to get.

    The PRS-1M is a great example, much like the Sprint, as they both have a ridiculous first stage speed.

    This speed creates an extremely high temperature around the missile while it's in the atmosphere. This causes disturbances that make these missiles practically blind not only to external sensors and C2 systems, but also their own onboard active sensors. 

    From some source that i was able to find, it seem that they was able to overcome the communication issue (plasma sheath) thanks to powerful transmitter and unique antenna arrangement.

    9SzKvwS.png

    LIoKLJH.png

    http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/pdf/ABM Research & Development at Bell Laboratories - Project History [1975-10].pdf

     

    Though on the other hand, you brought up interesting point, because these missiles fly very quick, they probably pierce through the atmosphere to very high altitude before they can change direction.  

  3. 31 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

     

    Nuclear warhead ABM existed before MIRV and your link does not support your claim.

     

     

     

     

    And?

    Nuclear warhead for interceptor could also be useful when you are attacked by multiple ballistic missiles. Furthermore, as far as i know, one of the reason THAAD, PAC-3, GDI use hit to kill method instead of blast warhead is due to the extreme closure rate between the interceptor and the RV => the fragments of HE warhead don't move fast enough to destroy RV, so we can predict that nuclear warhead is useful also because the neutrons rays can move faster than normal HE warhead fragments. 

    Why do you think my link doesn't support my claim? They clearly stated that Sprint is accurate enough to hit RV head on. 

    By saying PRS-1M is a new missile, i want to say that not all ABM with nuclear missiles are old missiles with old electronics 

  4. 1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

    If we (over)simplify the question, then it turns out that making the missile faster doesn't reduce it ability to successfully intercept.

    For a given G capability, the turn radius of a missile will decrease as its closing speed increases.  However, as the closing speed of the missile increases, the amount of time in which the target can deviate its flight course in order to try and dodge the missile also decreases.  You can essentially describe the sum of possible trajectories of the missile as a trumpet-shaped cone, and for the target as well.  As long as the target's cone sits inside the missile's cone, the missile is kinematically capable of hitting the target.

    If you make the missile faster, for a given G limit its cone becomes narrower.  However, the target's cone becomes shorter.  You can simplify this further by assuming that the missile's current velocity vector is pointed along an intercept lead course that will intersect with the target if the target does not change course.  If the target cannot produce more lateral acceleration than the missile can, it cannot force a miss.  At least in theory.

     

    The problem becomes one of very arcane technical questions.  Just how precisely does the missile system know the target's location and velocity?  What are the resolution and accuracy limits of this targeting?  How many times per second are these numbers checked and re-checked?  How often does the missile alter its course?

    I think it could be very simple

    At speed of 4 km/s, the distance of 40 km is covered in 10 seconds. In 10 seconds, your fighter fly at Mach 1 sea level can move at most 3.3 km in any direction from the original position.
    The 1 Mt nuclear warhead has:
    Fire ball radius of 0.97 km
    5 psi air blast radius of 7.3 km
    3 degrees thermal radiation burn radius of 12.2 km.
    In my opinion, the missile don't even need to turn.

  5. 2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

     

     

    These old ABM missiles have nuclear warheads because their accuracy (due to guidance and turning ability) was extremely poor, they only have to get with a few km of the target to be effective. Without their nuclear warheads they would have been large expensive missiles that were less effective than lower tier interceptors.

     

    That was a myth:

    Quote

    To say Sprint was a phenomenal missile, is putting it mildly. A cone shaped missile that accelerated at 100g, achieved a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds, had an ablative coating to dissipate the heat that was generated from the fiction from the atmosphere and was so accurate that the radar had to be de-tuned during testing so that it would not hit incoming RVs. It was a phenomenal missile.

    http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

    These ABM was equipped with nuclear warhead so that they can hit multiple RV at the same time.

    Another thing i want to add: PRS-1M  is a very new missile, recently introduced. 

  6. 20 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

     

    FYI at 90g a vehicle moving at mach 17 has a turn radius of about 24 miles.

    That probably true, but SAM don't need to match the turn radius of fighter to intercept them.

    For interceptor what important about the target is the distance deviated from original course. A target moving at 100 km/h, but can turn 50 degrees/second is easier to intercept than another target moving at Mach 10, and can turn only 5 degrees/sec. 

    Secondly, these missiles have nuclear warhead, and given their massive detonation/lethal radius (13 km) + the missiles super speed (mach  7-17) , i don't think they even need to turn, just launch toward the general direction of target and detonate 

  7. 8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

    Most existing ABMs lack the kinetic capability to do so, but it is possible in some layers.

    Flying at very high speed means maneuverability is also limited, and is only a counter to targets flying at a roughly equal speed.

     

     

     

    I think not all ABM lack kinematic capability, for example

    53T6 is able to intercept incoming re-entry vehicles at a distance of 80 km. The missile achieves speeds of approximately Mach 17 (20,826 km/h; 12,941 mph; 5.7849 km/s) with maximal load manoeuvre capability is 210 g longitudinal and 90 g transverse.

    That is far better than any fighters, beside, all these ABM are equipped with nuclear warhead. In case of 51T6, the warhead yield is 2 megaton even. So even a near miss is highly destructive

  8. There is some bug with the earlier post that i can't edit , sorry, posted again
    For just a moment, let say cost and logistic is not an issue, and these following SAM are your only available weapons, can they be used against normal aircraft (such bomber or fighter)? if it is possible, how effective are they?. If it isn't possible then why?
    1- Sprint
     
    The Sprint was a two-stage, solid-fuel anti-ballistic missile (ABM), armed with a W66 enhanced-radiation thermonuclear warhead used by the United States Army. It was designed to intercept incoming reentry vehicles(RV) after they had descended below an altitude of about 60 kilometres (37 miles), where the thickening air stripped away any decoys or radar reflectors and exposed the RV to observation by radar. As the RV would be travelling at about 5 miles (8.0 km) per second, Sprint had to have phenomenal performance to achieve an interception in the few seconds before the RV reached its target.
    Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds
     
    Sprint_missile_launched_from_Kwajalein.j
     
    2- 51T6
     
    Mass 33,000-45,000kg (73,000-100,000lb)
    Length 19.8 m
    Diameter 2.57m
    Blast yield Nuclear warhead equivalent to 10 kilotons of TNT
    Engine 2-stage solid fuel
    Operational
    range
    350-900km
    Flight ceiling 350-900km
    Speed Mach 7
     
    13944190240_ac73c1f9b5_b.jpg
     
    3- 53T6 missiles
    The missile is able to intercept incoming re-entry vehicles at a distance of 80 km. The 53T6 is a two-stage solid-propellant rocket armed with a 10 kt thermonuclear weapon. The missile is about 10 meters in length and 1.8 meters in diameter. Its launch weight is 10 tons.
    The 53T6 missile is kept in a silo-based launch container. Prior to launch its cover is blown off.
    The missile achieves speeds of approximately Mach 17 (20,826 km/h; 12,941 mph; 5.7849 km/s). Maximal load manoeuvre capability is 210 g longitudinal and 90 g transverse.
     
    main-qimg-73f302ba0a1d221546ec28a8b56a75
     
    3-PRS-1M missiles
     
    the PRS-1M is the fastest rocket in the world much more deadly than its predecessors of the type 53T6. It can reach speeds of four kilometres per second which is about 14,500 kilometres per hour.
    PRS-1M manages to achieve speed in its rising phase unlike the Hypersonic gliders in the fall back to earth. Additionally the range of use in width and height it is one and a half times that of its predecessor.
    It can intercept approaching rockets at a height of 50 kilometres and the range should be around 350 kilometres.
    A special heat shield is developed to enable enormous speed and complete electronics have been designed to withstand an acceleration 300 times the gravitational force.
    It is a true doomsday weapon which can only be used in a war that destroys the world. PRS-1M does not come with a conventional warhead with fragmentation shell and is built to protect Moscow from US missiles with nuclear warheads.
     
    DPYHCpIUIAAdEPF.jpg
  9. For just a moment, let say cost and logistic is not an issue, and these following SAM are your only available weapons, can they be used against normal aircraft (such bomber or fighter)? if it is possible, how effective are they?. If it isn't possible then why?
    1- Sprint
    The Sprint was a two-stage, solid-fuel anti-ballistic missile (ABM), armed with a W66 enhanced-radiation thermonuclear warhead used by the United States Army. It was designed to intercept incoming reentry vehicles(RV) after they had descended below an altitude of about 60 kilometres (37 miles), where the thickening air stripped away any decoys or radar reflectors and exposed the RV to observation by radar. As the RV would be travelling at about 5 miles (8.0 km) per second, Sprint had to have phenomenal performance to achieve an interception in the few seconds before the RV reached its target.
    Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds
    Sprint_missile_launched_from_Kwajalein.j
     
    2- 51T6
    Mass 33,000-45,000kg (73,000-100,000lb)
    Length 19.8 m
    Diameter 2.57m
    Blast yield Nuclear warhead equivalent to 10 kilotons of TNT
    Engine 2-stage solid fuel
    Operational
    range
    350-900km
    Flight ceiling 350-900km
    Speed Mach 7
    13944190240_ac73c1f9b5_b.jpg
     
    3- 53T6 missiles
    The missile is able to intercept incoming re-entry vehicles at a distance of 80 km. The 53T6 is a two-stage solid-propellant rocket armed with a 10 kt thermonuclear weapon. The missile is about 10 meters in length and 1.8 meters in diameter. Its launch weight is 10 tons.
    The 53T6 missile is kept in a silo-based launch container. Prior to launch its cover is blown off.
    The missile achieves speeds of approximately Mach 17 (20,826 km/h; 12,941 mph; 5.7849 km/s). Maximal load manoeuvre capability is 210 g longitudinal and 90 g transverse.
    main-qimg-73f302ba0a1d221546ec28a8b56a75
     
    3-PRS-1M missiles
    the PRS-1M is the fastest rocket in the world much more deadly than its predecessors of the type 53T6. It can reach speeds of four kilometres per second which is about 14,500 kilometres per hour.
    PRS-1M manages to achieve speed in its rising phase unlike the Hypersonic gliders in the fall back to earth. Additionally the range of use in width and height it is one and a half times that of its predecessor.
    It can intercept approaching rockets at a height of 50 kilometres and the range should be around 350 kilometres.
    A special heat shield is developed to enable enormous speed and complete electronics have been designed to withstand an acceleration 300 times the gravitational force.
    It is a true doomsday weapon which can only be used in a war that destroys the world. PRS-1M does not come with a conventional warhead with fragmentation shell and is built to protect Moscow from US missiles with nuclear warheads.
    DPYHCpIUIAAdEPF.jpg
  10. 2 hours ago, TWMSR said:

    Re your question about supershot round: it is a part that gets discarded during shot, just like sabot. AFAIK it is there to prevent automatic guns from jamming, which could occur if pointy projectile nose is exposed.

    Why does pointy projectile create jamming? Can you elaborate, i dont get it

  11. I know APFSDS have very thin body because the more smaller the impact area, the higher the pressure with the same amount of force, therefore  the round can penetrate deeper than if it was fat and short

    However, one thing i don't understand, why is the internal penetrating steel/tungsten core have such a blunt nose? not only that make the impact area bigger, it also mean the "real" perpetrator is effectively shorter. 

    So what is the point?

     

    1453137880-m111-hetz-cutaway.jpg3BM-22.jpg

    XpdGEi9.png

     

    Bonus question:

    why does the 50 mm super shot have a blunt nose? isn't that draggier ? i know it is a sabot round but a draggier start also mean the round will accelerate to lower velocity, so why did they do that

    nhmJVCQ.png

  12. 12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

    The range of HE is lower than that of APFSDS, in a consideration of only the flight characteristics of the projectile.

    However, what limits APFSDS range is not really how long it can fly. It can go for tens of kilometers with ease. It just won't retain the necessary velocity to penetrate a target. 

    A specific APFSDS could be effective to 3km for one target, 1.5km for another more armored target, and completely ineffective to another even more armored target.

    HE is not range-limited, and with fin stabilizers could fly out to a pretty good range. Russia (UVZ) claims the T-90 can fire its HE shell out to 12km.

     

    It's physically possible, but the bottleneck would be the sights that probably won't even recognize the pixel they're looking at, at that range.

     

    So if you can see a target 6km away, you can be sure lobbing HE shells is possible. In the IDF it's fairly routine to practice firing them out to 5km, and that's not really an exceptional feat in the west or anywhere.

     

     

    But it won't hit moving target at that range right?

  13. 6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

    Laser guidance won't work through cloud cover.
    Here's another freebie:
    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434233.pdf

    skip ahead to chapter 2 part 2 and git larned. I'm going to stop spoonfeeding you at some point, so enjoy it while it lasts.

    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

    file.php?id=30526

     

     

    Quote

    Also, laser illumination is like most EM "beams" not a binary "is/isn't illuminated" business, you have a lobe, and the sides of it are still enough to set off any LWR which isn't ancient.

    Also 0.3 sec to correct an offset of 3-5m (which is the min offset you'd need to get the target mostly out of the main lobe) is very optimistic for any ATGM.

    And to top it all off, that ATGM is extremely low energy and sad, being a 125mm beam rider.

    Get with the times, this isn't the 1960s, GLATGMs are not a good idea.

    I tried to look up laser side lobe but really i can't find anything, unlike radio frequency beam:
    Laser beam pattern:
    c0ja00017e-f3.gif 

     

     

    Radar beam pattern:
    par_pulse_acquisition_radar_an_mpq-50_ha

     

    I am not sure if that because laser beam has no side lobe or it is extremely in significant that it is not mentioned 

     

    Quote

     Spot size grows with distance, and while 50m accuracy may be enough to hit an industrial building, for example, it sure ain't good enough for a tank.

    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 


     Q9aYlaL.png

  14.  
     
     
     
     
     
     
    6
    5 hours ago, N-L-M said:

     

    Fixed wing aircraft designators are different from heli ones as they're operating from up high, and not down low where all the interference and dust is; they therefore have an easier time of things. And even then, the 40 NM range for ATFLIR is for a very new system in ideal conditions, and given with no reference target size. Spot size grows with distance, and while 50m accuracy may be enough to hit an industrial building, for example, it sure ain't good enough for a tank.

    Also the fact that you're ignorant of real world issues and haven't bothered to use google before coming here is a point against you, not in your favor. But seeing as you seem to need a good hard whacking with some primary sources, git rekt:
    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a251803.pdf

    The Hellfire had an average accuracy of 76% during ODS. And that was against a cooperative enemy!

    Laser guidance won't work through cloud cover.
    Here's another freebie:
    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434233.pdf

    skip ahead to chapter 2 part 2 and git larned. I'm going to stop spoonfeeding you at some point, so enjoy it while it lasts.

    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 

    2kK7NrC.png

     

    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:

    Ca5rPHQ.png

     

    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 

     

     

     

    Quote

    There are indeed other threats to helis, but effective gun counterfire from literally any target is not doing the helis any favors, and time fuzed HE which reaches helis behind terrain masking is a big threat compared to LOS-limited command-guided missiles such as those AA systems fling.

    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:
    9It9SN5.png

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

    nB6K7gA.png

     

     

     

     
     
     
    2
    Quote

    Ukrainian knockoff beam riders are even lower energy and sadder. Not a good idea.

    Also, laser illumination is like most EM "beams" not a binary "is/isn't illuminated" business, you have a lobe, and the sides of it are still enough to set off any LWR which isn't ancient.

    Also 0.3 sec to correct an offset of 3-5m (which is the min offset you'd need to get the target mostly out of the main lobe) is very optimistic for any ATGM.

    And to top it all off, that ATGM is extremely low energy and sad, being a 125mm beam rider.

    Get with the times, this isn't the 1960s, GLATGMs are not a good idea.

    No, even within that context it's still low energy and sad.

     

  15. 5 hours ago, heretic88 said:

    Here you go...

    The video title says Moskit, but I think it is more likely a Granit. Whole ship penetrated from front to back. This is the result of a 750kg penetrating warhead. (similar to WW2 penetrating bombs)

    And the warhead itself. Imagine this smashing into the ship's hull at mach 1.6... Thats enormous kinetic energy.

    CPG2p.jpg

    I cound be wrong but i think 16 inch cannon round is bigger than Moskit warhead and probably faster too

  16. 1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

     

    Those aren't stupid questions. Unfortunately some people here are too conservative and early to bark at people for raising questions for which the answers only seem obvious to them.

     

    1)The question of ERA versus NERA is a matter of design philosophies, and wargame analysis.

    In absolute terms, neither ERA nor NERA are more effective from one another.

     

    They both have a linear tradeoff of capabilities. It is a function of single-hit protection, i.e how effective would one type be against only 1 shot, and the total number of shots that armor can take. 

    In a very rough comparison, an ERA can interact with 1 projectile resulting in X penetration reduction. And a NERA armor would defend from 2 projectiles, with only X/2 penetration reduction at a time.

    On average, they are mathematically equal. On the battlefield, certain scenarios will show the superiority of one over the other.

     

    To better understand the situation, you must first understand that actually both western and eastern tanks use NERA of some form, as the key component of their armor. Only for a short time was ERA ever dominant over NERA, and that was at the time of tanks like Leopard 1, AMX-30, and M48/60, because proper composite armor did not exist yet with the quality needed to defeat HEAT or APFSDS.

     

    Next comes the impact probability analysis.

    If a certain area is considered likely to be hit multiple times in tight groupings, over the course of a single engagement, then NERA is the preferred solution, even though again the Soviet tanks used NERA as much as western tanks.

    If a certain area is only likely to be hit once in a single engagement, then ERA is preferred.

     

    This is why on most western AFVs, the first type of applique to appear for side protection was ERA, and only after certain advancements, it moved on to NxRA (will get into that later).

     

    And finally is the system's longevity analysis. Or basically how long the tank is expected to survive in either case.

     

    Soviet tanks were considered more disposable than NATO tanks. Although fiercely competing with the west to create the higher quality tank, part of the philosophy was that even an advanced tank won't survive for very long on the battlefield. Minutes at best.

    Thus ERA, being more effective for a single hit, would basically double the number of shots required to take out the tank, in some of the more likely scenarios.

    And when you double some capability, for seemingly no cost at all, that's something worth doing, and is no longer an incremental upgrade.

     

    In the west, tanks were expected to be more survivable, hence for example the human loader that was more of a spare than an actual necessity for normal operation of the tank.

    With a focus on higher overall longevity of the platform on the battlefield, the ERA would not be more than a minor addition over potent NERA. It would be a single use item in an environment in which designers believed a tank needs to be able to sustain many hits, even if only for the sake of recovery.

    Plus, it would encourage a bad culture of crewmembers' false reliance on a single use item, perhaps not fully understanding the extent of the danger in such belief.

     

    But wherever sufficient NERA was not possible, western philosophy did not exclude ERA at all, and you can see the Bradley for example entirely covered in ERA

     

    2)Depends who you're looking at.

     

    USA - Wanted Trophy more than a decade ago but Raytheon lobbied hard enough to delay its acquisition until it can complete its own system, which it eventually never has. 

    Reallocation of funds was also time consuming. Army doesn't always get what it wants, and almost never on time, unless Congress is especially generous.

     

    Rest of NATO - For three reasons mainly.

    First, they are very much disconnected from their MIC and will more often try to subvert the MIC than help it, because of a perceived sense of security.

     

    Second, rest of NATO are being led, not leading new technological trends. Their innovators are their MIC which they don't do nearly enough to support.

     

    Third, the acquisition of arms in Europe is done with the intent of deterrence, not the actual usage of said equipment in combat. Hence why you can still see Leopard 2A4 as the main MBTs of certain countries.

    I've explained a long while ago, in depth, the economical effects of an APS. One of the conclusions was that it is economically unviable to buy AFVs without APS, if the AFVs are to be used during their lifetimes at least once in a medium to high intensity combat scenario. Most combat today is hybrid warfare, which is medium intensity. So basically for most of the combat we see globally, an APS is a must.

    It is only viable to buy a tank without an APS if the tank is not expected to see combat.

     

    That is why countries like the US, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey, are seen investing in APS. Even poor Syria does. 

     

    A Leopard 2A7V, and its ancestor the Leo 2, form a lineage of 40 years of service in Germany. At no point were they used in serious combat by the Bundeswehr. Only the VJTF is supposed to be deployed abroad and expected to see combat on short notice, which is why the VJTF tanks will receive an APS. It just didn't get much publicity.

     

    Of course, there are some within NATO who see the importance of capability maintenance and building regardless of the probability of war, and are investing in APS as well. The Netherlands for example are probably going to be the first in Europe to use an APS, on their CV90.

     

    3)Russian ATGMs are not really a good comparison. They simply were never really effective weapons. Only effective within a small range of conditions.

     

    A proper GLATGM would be something like a Spike downsized to 120mm, but today it's hardly necessary. There are two main considerations to this - tools, and tactics.

     

    Tools - a tank battalion never drives alone. It will have infantry support. Infantry on the battalion level will always have an AT element capable of launching ATGMs at standoff ranges, and their vehicles have ATGMs as well, to multiply the output. Other than that, available tools include artillery, that in the modern day use long range guided missiles (+20km range), guided rockets, and guided/unguided shells.

     

    Tactics - when spotting a tank formation of any size, 6-8km away, other options are preferred. Ambush with short range engagement from prepared positions is ideal.

    The next best alternative is actually calling artillery or aviation, because the effects of a sudden barrage are going to be far greater, as opposed to an ATGM volley that would have the core of the formation maneuver away and screening their maneuver, when they see the first missile flying.

    The third best option would be to lob HE shells, not ATGMs, at enemy tanks too far away.

    The reason is that HE can do a lot of damage to the optics, gun, stabilizers, and other external equipment that is key for the effective use of the tank. It could even outright disable tanks by hitting the tracks or the UFP close to the driver's hatch.

    ATGMs pack an HE payload as well, but are far less versatile and substantially more expensive, to the point where it's worth asking whether allocating vital space for them inside the ammo rack is even worth sacrificing other ammo types. HE-MP is just too versatile to not want it in greater numbers.

     

    4)Basically all current MBTs can take a hit from a 152mm howitzer. That is, the crew will live, but the tank will be disabled.

     

    This question is perhaps irrelevant, because howitzers on the battlefield are used in direct mode only rarely and in emergencies.

     

     

    BONUS: Today there is something called NxRA. It differs from NERA and is somewhat of a replacement to it, rather than a competitor.

     

    Anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but basically:

    NERA - Non Energetic Reactive Armor. It does not produce any energy on its own. It relies on the energy produced by the projectile and impacts the projectile with proportionately produced energy.

    It's reactive, but more often than not regarded as passive because of its lack of independently energetic components.

     

    NxRA - Non eXplosive Reactive Armor. Much like ERA, and unlike NERA it produces its own energy. However, it's not the blast you'll see with an ERA. It's more tame.

    And the results are an armor that is as survivable as the NERA, but quite substantially more effective per shot than it. Not as effective per shot as ERA or SLERA (self limiting ERA), but it's somewhere close.

     

    Because of this, NxRA is considered more effective than the NERA and ERA, because its per-shot-effectiveness to survivability ratio, is higher than both of them.

     

    You can even see that the NxRA is gaining traction, and is now armoring tanks like the Merkava 4 entirely (or almost entirely), is offered for advanced variants of the Leopard 2, and armors the UAE's Leclerc. 

    It's also used on a plethora of medium AFVs like the CV90, Ajax and ASCOD, etc.

     

    It's just not going to replace ERA everywhere because of a not too good volume efficiency that could make certain vehicles too large.

     

     

    It really was one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard when rationalizing combat capability degradation programs.

    Basically every army that saw actual combat, decided the potential risks posed by ERA to infantry are greatly outweighed by the risk reductions it offers.

     

    When APS became operational, only then has this idea become a frequent talking point. But APS is far less dangerous than ERA because it neutralizes the projectile's warhead without initiating it.

    All because Raytheon couldn't deal with their loss.

     

     

    LAHAT is only a shitshow if you insist on analyzing its capabilities OUTSIDE of its historical background.

    It was devised for the Merkava 2 tank, long before the Spike even had half the capabilities it has today.

     

    At the time, you needed LoS to the target to fire off a Spike, while the LAHAT allowed you to fire it off without LoS.

     

    Another point you've forgotten is that a helicopter is not required for remote designation. It can be done via infantry. In any event of invasion into Israel, the first line of troops will be border brigades, not equipped with tanks and heavy weapons, but with a great deal of observation and intelligence capabilities. They, and the spearhead units', have plenty of infantry they would allocate to target spotting and designation either for artillery, AF, and whatever. They can easily designate targets for MBTs or helicopters using LAHAT. And they themselves would have a low combat signature.

    Caliber is of course a non-factor because of top attack, hence why Spike missiles (except for SR) always had a relatively weak warhead compared with contemporary designs, even other similar sized missiles developed by the same company.

     

    Only today are LAHAT missiles irrelevant, hence their withdrawal from service a long time ago, and their marketing to non modern armies.

     

    It's not very accurate. The Namer and Merkava 3 and 4 may have ERA in some places.

    It's not confirmed but the Mark 4 has armor plates with the inscription "explosive", and the Mark 3 and Namer have armor modlues with box shapes, suspiciously ERA-like. 

    Besides, certain Nagmachon variants can still be seen with the old Blazer ERA.

    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

  17. On 4/7/2018 at 4:19 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

    http://milnavigator.com.ua/українські-танки-отримають-новий-дин/

     

    Credit on the finding to Stayh78 from waronline.org forum.

    Translation for each page directly above it.

     

      Reveal hidden contents

     

    1.1 Dynamic Protection (ERA) "Nozh".

    Main Battle Tank T-64BM Bulat, the backbone of Ukraine's armored might, entered service in the year 2004 with a built in ERA system "Nozh". 

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B43.jpg

     

    Some results of tests of "Nozh" ERA mounted on a 140mm thick armor plate. On the left; APFSDS shell BM-42 Mango. On the right; EFP from 152mm shell. Residual penetration of 20mm from the 152mm shell.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B44.jpg

     

    Modernized combat vehicle T-72B1-1050 with Nozh.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B45.jpg

     

    Effectiveness of the Ukrainian ERA "Nozh" in combat conditions.

    After examining 55 tanks that were deployed in combat zones, 17 cases of Nozh activation were observed and documented.

    Impact from a tandem warhead Kornet ATGM between the first and second ERA blocks on the left side of the turret of the T-64BM1 tank.

    The tandem warhead ATGM Kornet was neutralized completely. Once the jet pierces the main armor the turret is gone. The tank remained operational.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B46-1024x640

     

    Multiple hits from AT weapons on the UFP: BM-15 (19) - 2 hits. "Fagot" - 1 hit. PG-7 (9) - 2 hits. 

    4 activations of the Nozh ERA complex. Nearby blocks did not detonate. Very little residual penetration. Only replacement of the ERA blocks was required.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B47-1024x640

     

    The ERA "Nozh" worked. No residual penetration. If the jet pierces into the armor, the hull is gone.

    The side armor panel was deformed and requires repairs. The tank remained operational.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B48-1024x640

     

    Impact of a 125mm HEAT shell between the 2nd and 3rd armor blocks on the right side of the BM Bulat tank's turret.

    Nozh was activated in the 2nd and 3rd blocks. Some residual penetration in the applique armor. No residual penetration inside the turret main armor. Repair - only the ERA blocks on the turret. Tank remains operational.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B49-1024x640

     

    Impacts from ATGM "Fagot" and PG-7 grenades. Nozh was activated twice. 4 blocks detonated. Some of the blocks were blown off by the ATGM and grenades. The remaining 9 blocks remain in working condition. 

    Residual penetration was only 6mm-12mm. The tank didn't lose any capability.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B410-1024x64

     

    Impact from ATGM "Fagot".

    Nozh was activated once. The rest of the elements were activated by the blast.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B411-1024x64

     

    All combat vehicles on which the ERA system "Nozh" was activated, have preserved their combat capabilities and remained operational.

    Even when multiple hits are encountered, and multiple blocks are activated, the crew are unaffected.

    In its capabilities, the Nozh ERA far exceeds the defensive capabilities of the Kontakt family.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B412-1024x64

     

    Anti-tandem-warhead ERA "Duplet".

    The Duplet ERA, along with the BM Oplot tank with its built-in blocks of Duplet, have entered service. The Oplot with the ERA system Duplet is on order in a G2G contract.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B413-1024x64

     

    Some results of the tests of the Duplet:

    On the left; Tandem warhead PG-7VR on the side armor module. Residual penetration 45mm, armor not penetrated.

    On the right; APFSDS BM-42 Mango. Armor not penetrated. Residual penetration of 20mm on the side. 60mm on something I don't understand.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B414-1024x64

     

    Comparison of characteristics on the reduction of penetration capabilities, in percentage:

    Dark blue - Duplet (Ukraine).

    Light blue - Nozh (Ukraine).

    Olive green - Relikt (Russia).

    Light green - Kontakt 5 (Russia/USSR).

    Dark green - Kontakt 1 (Russia/USSR).

    Orange - Blazer (Israel).

    Red - Type ERA-3 (China).

     

    From left to right:

    Unitary warhead shaped charge. 

    Tandem warhead shaped charge.

    APFSDS.

    EFP.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B415-1024x64

     

    Nozh is 1.5 to 2.5 times more capable than the Blazer and Kontakt-5 ERA. Duplet protects from all types of threats. Although effective protection systems for light armored vehicles don't exist yet.

    The residual penetration is sufficient to pierce the armor of light armored vehicles, whose average armor thickness is 10mm-30mm.

     

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B416-1024x64

     

    For light vehicles, we recommend the Nozh-L and Raketka.

    The Nozh-L provides an 80% probability to defeat unitary shaped charge warheads and EFPs. Armor breaks excluded.

    It has an aerial density of 200 to 250kg/m^2.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B417-1024x64

     

    Results of tests of Nozh-L.

    Against PG-9C - armor against 12.7mm bullets wasn't pierced. Residual penetration 4mm. Against EFP it wasn't pierced, but bent by 6mm.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B418-1024x64

     

    Raketka provides additional protection against tandem warheads with the same success probability of no less than 80%. It has an increased aerial density of 300 to 350km/m^2.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B419-1024x64

     

    Results of testing of Raketka.

    Against PG-7VLT (NATO) it wasn't pierced (side of BMP). Against PG-7VR it wasn't pierced but had residual penetration of 4mm. Same armor plates as before.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B420-1024x64

     

    Possible variants of ERA protection for armored posts.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B421-1024x64

     

    Possible variants for MTLB.

    %D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B422-1024x64

     

    That is very impressive, thank you

  18. 1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

    2. What? Did you even looked at Oplot tank?

    T-72 and T-80 equipped with Arena? Are you sure about that?

     

    3. Those tanks also have questinable protection against modern "Western" ammunition. Not sure about Type 99A, but it is not exactly on top of the list of possible threats. GL-ATGM penetration capabilities are very limited with guidance channel, caliber and increasing number of APS.

     

    4. Again, depends on exact situation - how close to UFP it exploded, is it happened near driver hatch and so on.

     

    5. Kek. 

    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)

     

  19. 1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

    Laser designation is extremely problematic at those ranges, which is part of the reason why the later Hellfires are MMW. The laser versions did not work very well with ground level or even heli based designators at extended ranges. If you then choose to designate on remote with someone closer, well it's suicide for them.

    Laser illumination for the long TOF at those extreme ranges gives the enemy ample time to react, popping smoke and maneuvering to cover, as well as counterfire. Kicking up a dirt cloud with a HE round between the designator and the targeted vehicle will cause the beam to dissipate and the missile to lose guidance.

    Hellfires switched to MMW for this reason and others, and currently many heli operators are switching over to NLOS missiles to overcome the vulnerability of helis to MPHE even at extreme ranges, so that's not a point in your favor right there.

    Maverick is quite a bit larger than a full size ATGM. Full size is TOW or Kornet or at the larger side of things Hellfire; Maverick is a multipurpose air to ground munition kind of in a class of its own. To put it bluntly it is extremely large, with a much larger warhead than a 155mm shell by a factor of more than 3, which literally 2 seconds of googling would tell you if you'd bother to look things up before posting.

    Compare that to a TOW or Kornet which have similar explosive content to a 155mm shell.

    And if we're comparing large aircraft carried weapons, why stop with the Mav? Go straight for SAP 500lb bombs, because youre clearly not interested in comparing like to like.

    Single shaped charges are low energy and sad because all modern armor is very well optimized for defeating them, so you get a shockingly low Pkill compared to the size of the Maverick, which is again retardedly large for what its used for, hence its replacement with a missile literally 1/3 the size.

    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:

    Quote

    679blog1317385855.jpg

     

    The KOMBAT missiles can be loaded into the tank gun’s carousel-type automatic loader together with all other round types employed by the gun. The KOMBAT missile body consists of two parts: the head end/tandem warhead and aft end (accommodating sensor/control aids and propulsion), both being stowed in the automatic loader in the same way as conventional ammunition. The two parts get united into one body in the gun bore at the moment of firing. The missile’s tandem warhead enables it to defeat targets fitted with explosive reactive armor with a first-round hit probability of 0.8-0.9.

    The KOMBAT has four fold-out fins at its extreme rear, and offers an effective range of 5,000 m which it covers in 17 seconds. With a mass overall of 30 kilos, the missile is far heavier than Russian counterparts, such as the 125mm REFLEX with a maximum range of 5,000 meters, and the BASTION which fires from 100mm rifled guns to ranges of up to 4,000 meters. A tandem shaped-charge warhead makes up almost half of the KOMBAT’s length, allowing a heavier explosive payload to be delivered to the target. The warhead weighs 9kg, including a 3kg explosive charge (it is by far heavier than the warhead featured in the REFLEX), contributing considerably to the missile’s armor piercing capability, which, again, much exceeds that of the REFLEX. The KOMBAT is a laser-beam-riding guided missile, the laser beam being directed onto the tail of the flying missile rather than on the target proper. The missile’s control system allows for a few guidance modes. One such is so called “lead-on” mode, whereby the laser beam is directed frontward the designated target without actually illuminating it. The laser beam is only brought into coincidence with the target (tank or helicopter) for 0.3 seconds prior to impact, effectively leaving the enemy with no time to activate a laser-warning system. At a range of 5.0 km, miss distance does not exceed 0.5 m. The missile has been accepted as standard issue for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.



    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?

    d3.jpg

     

     

     

  20. 2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

    Lahat is a shitshow, low caliber and requires laser designation, ie someone with a line of sight to the target illuminating it for the duration of the engagement, which against modern tanks is suicide.

    This illum LOS requirement means that in practical effect it's a LOS only weapon, same as APFSDS, excluding niche cases in which someone else designates for the launcher- which begs the questions of a. Why isn't the designator engaging with their own weapons and b. If the designator is calling in other weapons anyway why not call in something more effective like a Spike, which also has the benefit of not attracting the enemy's attention via lasing.

    Lahat is fundamentally not a good idea for engaging modern tanks, and the 105mm dia isn't doing it any favors either.

    AGM 65 is a big fucking ASM. Theres very little you can do against a 300lb SAP warhead (though the single shaped charge variant is low energy and sad). Mav is not however an efficient weapon, as it's fucking huge. For reference, it's slated to be replaced by triple JAGM racks. Hell at this point why not talk about 500lb AP bombs, if you want to full retard on tank busting?

    Bottom line is that it's not a good idea.

     

    Also your SNR is terrible, please learn to post:

     

    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 

    cuba.png

    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

    Lrmbn4a.pngxXELhOW.png

     

     

    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?

     

×
×
  • Create New...