Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+94
miketheterrible
0nillie0
Cyrus the great
sheytanelkebir
Interlinked
BM-21
Tingsay
T-47
Big_Gazza
JohninMK
PapaDragon
SeigSoloyvov
Cheetah
A1RMAN
x_54_u43
Isos
KoTeMoRe
franco
KiloGolf
Benya
VladimirSahin
TheArmenian
kvs
ult
galicije83
Bankoletti
AK-Rex
Pinto
Project Canada
zepia
chicken
Acheron
Morpheus Eberhardt
Akula971
Shadåw
GunshipDemocracy
OminousSpudd
Walther von Oldenburg
Arctic_Fox
max steel
Glyph
volna
Godric
k@llashniKoff
xeno
AttilaA
Book.
putinboss
cracker
AlfaT8
flamming_python
mack8
victor1985
Vympel
Mike E
higurashihougi
Asf
magnumcromagnon
Werewolf
Vann7
George1
indochina
sepheronx
Regular
nemrod
a89
dino00
collegeboy16
ricky123
KomissarBojanchev
Stealthflanker
Zivo
Dima
Bthebrave
ali.a.r
Pugnax
Russian Patriot
TR1
Acrab
Admin
coolieno99
KRATOS1133
Cyberspec
Mindstorm
ahmedfire
medo
Austin
GarryB
Andy_Wiz
runaway
nightcrawler
IronsightSniper
Hoof
Viktor
98 posters

    T-90 Main Battle Tank

    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2250
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:05 am

    An important point often currently missed by western defence experts now is that the commander of a T-90 equipped with all the bells and whistles is better off than an Abrams commander simply because Nakhidka will reduce the range at which the Abrams commander can see the T-90 to the point where it will be like Desert Storm... except in reverse.

    how ?

    T-90 FCS more efficient than M1A2 one ?


    The point is that you don't want to go to the expense of a new calibre if you don't have to, and I don't want to increase weight because that also means new suspension and transmission and new engine to get that mobility back.

    but i can stand developing some good and efficient calibre , you can't stand avery heavy tank !
    you have limits more than me..right ?


    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40006
    Points : 40502
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:04 am

    how ?

    T-90 FCS more efficient than M1A2 one ?

    The Nakhidka IR and radar protection screen reduces radar signature by a factor of 6 and IR signature by a significant amount as well.
    Its purpose is to make the tank invisible at extended ranges so while the T-90s thermal sight will allow the T-90 commander to clearly see an Abrams at ranges in excess of 7km, the Abrams commander will have a much greater problem of seeing the T-90 due to the IR screening.

    If you can't see it, then you can't hit it... and if you can't hit it then you can't penetrate its armour.

    but i can stand developing some good and efficient calibre , you can't stand avery heavy tank !
    you have limits more than me..right ?

    There is a limit to what you can achieve at a given calibre and it is subject to the law of diminished returns. Eventually it is simpler and cheaper to go to a larger calibre with more energy, but that means bigger gun, more recoil, heavier stabilisation system and often longer heavier barrel, and of course heavier larger ammo that is harder for a human loader to handle in the confines of a turret and reduced ammo capacity because of the size of the rounds.

    The other issue is that the heaviest tank armour is the frontal 60 degrees or so... the belly, roof, rear and sides of tanks are vulnerable.

    Plus you have to armour your vehicle too and you don't armour to protect against your gun, you armour to protect against my gun. If I am building a 70 ton super tank then perhaps I can justify a 150+mm calibre gun that will cut through armour like butter and hit targets at long range.
    Moreover the large calibre means a very wide HEAT warhead which should give amazing penetration at any range with the capacity for fire and forget diving top attack missiles.

    So it doesn't matter how small and efficient your gun is, most of the weight of a tank is armour and that depends on what gun I decide to use.

    The biggest misconception with armour is that you need to match gun for gun, when really the goal is to be able to kill an enemy tank from the front at extended range.
    If NATO adopts a 140mm gun this is not a reason for the Russians to adopt a larger calibre too. The reason to burden yourself with a larger calibre gun is to ensure you can defeat enemy armour at sufficient range that you can go into combat happy that you can penetrate enemy armour at combat distances.
    NATO countries are no actually looking at increasing armour levels of their MBTs... they actually want to make them lighter by trading armour weight for things the Soviets and Russians have been doing for years... active protection systems and ERA.

    The benefit of having 40-50 ton tanks with comparable levels of protection to western tanks of 70-80 tons is that less fuel is used to move the vehicles around... lighter aircraft can be used to transport them, they do less damage to roads and bridges.

    The tank is often described as the best anti tank weapon, but in recent wars a tank is more commonly a direct fire fire support vehicle for infantry support to help take and hold ground from regular and irregular forces.
    A helicopter can do the same job for short periods but it is the tank that stays with the unit 24/7 and can be counted on even just for its machine guns to support attacks.

    It is relatively rare for armour to meet armour in wars that have been fought recently and air control is rather more important to the final result than any capacity of tanks to win or lose.

    In fact experimentation with electro magnetic guns might lead to a sudden and dramatic drop in calibre. A 50mm calibre EM gun firing a 1kg dart projectile at 5km/s should have impressive penetration performance and the FCS design will be greatly simplified by the very short flight times to target.

    A good example would the the Steyr entry to the new rifle competition for the US army in the 1980s. It didn't have elevating sights because the flechette round had a muzzle velocity of something like 1,800m/s through a smooth bore barrel and so there was little bullet drop out to 800m so it had fixed iron sights. Problem was that it could pass through a beating heart and not stop it unless it bend on impact it didn't do very much damage.... except a very small puncture wound.
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2250
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:05 pm

    thanks.

    so while the T-90s thermal sight will allow the T-90 commander to clearly see an Abrams at ranges in excess of 7km, the Abrams commander will have a much greater problem of seeing the T-90 due to the IR screening.

    but,you can't fire form 7 km . useless range ,just like AA radar 400 km range ,you can't fire from that range (except firing on awacs or tankers ).


    the 120mm gun is stronger than russias 125mm its because the abrams has a guallum api with traps gases making it stronger hitting with the force of a 134mm gun .


    The Nakhidka IR and radar protection screen reduces radar signature by a factor of 6 and IR signature by a significant amount as well.


    link plz ?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40006
    Points : 40502
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:09 am

    but,you can't fire form 7 km . useless range ,just like AA radar 400 km range ,you can't fire from that range (except firing on awacs or tankers ).

    Say what!!!

    If you can see the enemy from 7km and they can only detect your presence at 2-3km of course you have an enormous advantage. You can monitor their movements and call in Smerch fire from 90km away using anti armour guided munitions with no threat at all to your own forces.

    You can determine choke points and then move to a position where you can attack them from the flank.

    You can even just close to 5km range and start firing tube launched anti armour missiles and they wont even see where they are coming from...

    In air to air combat this is called situational awareness and it is the difference between life and death most of the time.

    It is rather like armoured combat in Desert Storm where the Abrams were detecting and firing on Iraqi T-55s and T-72s from 2-3km at night which was beyond the 1.2km the Iraqi tanks could see at night with their II sights.

    the 120mm gun is stronger than russias 125mm its because the abrams has a guallum api with traps gases making it stronger hitting with the force of a 134mm gun .

    Eh? There is no such thing as a 134mm gun so I don't understand the reference.
    The currently made 125mm guns are made with the latest technology, though in the past a limitation has been present in the fact that the ammo had to fit in a carosel autoloader, which as you might appreciate limited the length of the rounds to at most half the diameter of the turret ring. With the new bustle autoloader configuration that projectile length limit no longer applies and more effective long rod penetrators can be developed to match the performance of the 120mm German gun.

    link plz ?


    According to Nii Stali (Scientific Research Institute of Steel), who designed Nakidka, it reduces the chances of detection by Day/Night viewers and TV systems and seekers by thirty percent, Infrared seekers by two to three fold, radar by six fold, and reduces the thermal-radar signature to near-background levels.[1] Nakidka is efficient in the optical, IR and radar wavelength bands up to 12 cm,[2] and also reduces the Radar cross section by 10 db.[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakidka
    (note the source links don't work because Niistali changed the structure of their website and the source links point to the old pages.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:06 pm

    T-90AM

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/d-90do10.jpg
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:08 am

    T-90AM New Pictures

    https://i.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/d-90do10.jpg

    some info on Armata and T-90

    http://vpk.name/news/56616_rossiiskaya_armiya_k_2020_godu_vzglyad_optimista.html

    Will be purchased and equipment for ground forces. Thus, according to the director of the Federal Service Rosoboronzakaz Sergey Maev, 2020 Russian fleet of armored forces will consist of half-T-90 tanks from the tanks and half the new sample. At the same official let slip about the combat characteristics of new cars. The new tank will get a higher fire power, more powerful ammunition and shooting range. Work is underway to build missiles with a range of 7 km. (Now the Russian Army is a tank missiles with a range of 5 km). . Manageability tank will be increased by the use of various automatic control systems. Average speed of vehicles on rough terrain should reach 50-60 km / h, against the current of 30-50 km / h. In addition, one of the main requirements for the tank crew will be the ability to conduct combat operations within 24 hours without leaving the car.


    T-90 justifiably criticized, but this machine is well suited to be the "workhorse" and can remain in service for many years. This tank is capable of withstanding an explosion 30 kiloton nuclear bomb at a distance of 700 meters and can travel underwater. But its main advantages - it's maintainability, simplicity, possibility of use in harsh climatic conditions and, of course, low price (about $ 1.8 million for export versions).
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40006
    Points : 40502
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:06 am

    Interesting in the new photo that they have an ERA array protecting the side of the turret of the tank.
    In the past they have tended to focus on armour in the frontal arcs and protecting the sides by shaping to make them difficult to hit from the front.

    I would suspect that in addition to ERA blocks they might have thickened the armour on the turret sides to further increase protection.

    It sounds like they are going to a hi lo configuration of tanks again with the hi Armata and low T-90, though I would think that they would need large orders of T-90s to make the T-90AM version cheap.

    I rather suspect they might try to introduce a T-90 "family" of vehicles first, perhaps with test units using T-90 based vehicles like the T-90AM, the BTRT, and T-90 based MSTA 152mm tube artillery and T-90 based air defence vehicles etc.

    Would be useful to test as many things at once so there is little point till about 2012 when the communications and command and control systems are ready, but production of the actual vehicles could start as soon as next year to ensure numbers.

    Remember right now the majority of the tank park is T-72s, and they have by my estimates less than 1,000 T-90s so if they want a balanced force of Armatas and T-90s then they are almost going to have to make as many T-90s as Armatas.

    Will be interesting concentrating all you tanks and tank based vehicles into Heavy Brigades.
    Of course the fire power of the BMP-3 means in terms of firepower their medium and light brigades would not be lacking even without a vehicle with a 125mm gun. (ie BMP-3M for medium and BTR-90M equivelent based on the Kangaroo for the medium and light brigade).
    Of course they will likely have Sprut type vehicles as an option too.

    The comment about Armata having a more powerful armament is interesting... will it be a new weapon setup with perhaps a 30mm cannon and updated 125mm gun of higher pressure with even longer rod penetrators?
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:28 am

    Garry something more interesting on T-90M from Gur Khan blog

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_3131.html
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2250
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:14 pm


    Garry:
    The Nakhidka IR and radar protection screen reduces radar signature by a factor of 6 and IR signature by a significant amount as well.
    Its purpose is to make the tank invisible at extended ranges so while the T-90s thermal sight will allow the T-90 commander to clearly see an Abrams at ranges in excess of 7km, the Abrams commander will have a much greater problem of seeing the T-90 due to the IR screening.

    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    Such gadgets are only interesting for performance comparisons when they are only available for a specific vehicle or if the design features of a vehicle hinder an implemention.
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2250
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:29 pm


    That is the most complete line of inf. across T-90

    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-294.html
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40006
    Points : 40502
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:42 am

    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    That is true, but from what I have read the Russian upgraded tanks are going to be fitted with everything that works including ARENA etc so there is a high chance they will be fitted with Nakidka as well.

    US tanks on the other hand are not assured of getting such things applied to them any time soon because most of their potential enemies don't have thermal sights anyway.
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Mindstorm Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:10 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:
    Garry:
    The Nakhidka IR and radar protection screen reduces radar signature by a factor of 6 and IR signature by a significant amount as well.
    Its purpose is to make the tank invisible at extended ranges so while the T-90s thermal sight will allow the T-90 commander to clearly see an Abrams at ranges in excess of 7km, the Abrams commander will have a much greater problem of seeing the T-90 due to the IR screening.

    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    Such gadgets are only interesting for performance comparisons when they are only available for a specific vehicle or if the design features of a vehicle hinder an implemention.


    That is true only in a very partial way. Let put the facts straight
    1) The corrispective of Nakidka (also if in reality talk of a real corrispective would be technically incorrect)is SAAB MCS - Mobile Camouflage System - ; this product at contrary of,at example,ULCAS - Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Screen - from the same company (a corrispective of the Russian Volchitsa-KR camonet) is not a single polymer layer with multispectral capabilities but offer different layers customizable by the operators for a particular purpose

    From the site of its producer SAAB :"Saab Barracuda’s Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) is intended primarily for protection of vehicles while moving and during combat. The Mobile Camouflage System is a flexible solution that can be applied in a number of configurations using different types of materials."
    and "The Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) provides protection to vehicles while moving and during combat. Available in a range of different versions, the system is composed by a combination of camouflage materials with signature adaptation properties such as visual and near-infrared protection, thermal protection and radar protection."

    SAAB MCS has of course also its advantages in respect to Nakidka ,at example, it is significantly more light ,it is cheaper, adaptable at the shape of the intended vehicle and mantain the typical blending surface of common camo-net ,adaptable to different environments, but it is a product in a completely different category in respect to Nakidka , the level of complexity of which render the product of NII Stali a true unique product, with no real equivalent at today woldwide (we must in fact remember that NII Stali has proudly publicized the outstanding capabilities offered by the export version of Nakidka , sure that no other producer at world could have claimed for a contemporary system ,parameter-vs-parameter, equal or better figures ...and that revealed itself true up to today ,SAAB included....)

    That is a video of the same NII Stali explaining the characteristics of the material composing Nakidka and its operational impact
    Note : Is not the radar signature of the protected vehicle, but the radar tracking range at being reduced to 1/6 .


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpwPx--exs

    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2250
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    That is true, but from what I have read the Russian upgraded tanks are going to be fitted with everything that works including ARENA etc so there is a high chance they will be fitted with Nakidka as well.

    US tanks on the other hand are not assured of getting such things applied to them any time soon because most of their potential enemies don't have thermal sights anyway.

    n the big picture the US is overhelmingly in front of everybodythat else that reducing the IR/radar signature of individual tanks is not going to change much.
    Especially their highly networked force structure is impressive. A modern US heavy division tied into their force structure is really impressive when it comes to punch, agility, reconaissance and responsiveness. So the individual system has less impact on the capability of such a heavy division than with a force which can hardly employ combined arms tactics let alone the sort of networked sea/air/land-battle the US can (I am not referring to Russia here!).

    And the Barracuda may very well suffer a little bit from NIH-syndrome.

    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Mindstorm Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:17 pm

    Especially their highly networked force structure is impressive. A modern US heavy division tied into their force structure is really impressive when it comes to punch, agility, reconaissance and responsiveness. So the individual system has less impact on the capability of such a heavy division than with a force which can hardly employ combined arms tactics let alone the sort of networked sea/air/land-battle the US can

    Excuse me for say that, but i absolutely don't agree on this position, not in its premises neither in its main inferences.
    If you have read Net Working Warfare by David S. Alberts, Frederick P.Stain and John J. Garstka ,or other publiation ,in particular on the sensor network in tracking and surveillance operations, you will realize that obviously net working warfare, like any concept in this world, don't contain only positive trends and potentials, but also evident lackings leading to points of breacking of its same constituent structure.

    One of those weak points is just related to surveillance and tracking sensor network, the information's chain linked to it and the strategic and the tactical actions triggered ,at an unified level, by that same data flow; one of the most fearful point of breacking in NWW is just that any system technically capable to neutralize or interfere with the main elements in tracking sensor network, cause effectively the whole net worked structure to act as a potent catalyst of completely wronged proactive or reactive actions.
    This potentially destructive sequence’s cascade in the force command structure is ,obviously ,enormously exacerbated in conflicts against enemies which have invested in systems enjoying "metric" or, for better say, extensive advantages (engagement envelop of missile, the off-road speed of an IFV, the time of reaction or number of target engageable in a time unit by a particular SAM, etc..etc...) offering hardware linear advantages not easily reducible .

    To clarify even more what now expressed i will do some examples : Image an offensive/defensive operation where E-8 Joint STARS or an E-3 AWACS was scanning a particular sector ,now in a group of trees of this sector a Penela-1/2 ,under a Volchitsa-KR ,go active. The surveillance assets scan the sector providing the overall position of various enemy assets (a mobile command center, an advancing mechanized regiment, a pair of SAM launchers , sevral MRLS etc...),with the only particular that those informations has been selectively corrupted and twisted by the Pelena-1/2.
    From this moment those wronged information begin to spread at enormous speed in the whole force structure quickly triggering an horrible ,almost instantaneous ,chain of wronged decisions and net worked reaction, the system, in brief, begin to act against itself !
    Naturally an enemy enjoying hardware parametrical advantages against the correspondent systems of its enemy, can transform a similar situation from serious to deadly; an air attack against the MLRS artillery pieces tracked in a position ,and in reality at 50-60 km of distance, could cause the whole air group committed at the task to be washed-out by the SAM elements not tracked or tracked in completely different positions, the allied ground forces contestually retreated to prevent that them was engaged and destroyed by the enemy superior (both in range and fire power) MLRS ,could open a deadly corridor for the enemy ground divisions to exploit etc..etc... the possibilities are infinite.
    In brief any enemy asset capable to act even only slightly and slowly in the mechanisms of the surveillance and tracking sensor network is very likely to produce exponentially greater and quicker negative effects in the whole chained structure of a networked force.

    ahmedfire you can, at this point, easily realize how a system as Nakidka, at the exact contrary of what you had asserted, represent an example of those a crucial assets capable to produce disproportionate effect just against an enemy which have heavily pointed on situational awareness superiority and information data sharing/management superiority, (important also for compensate several metrical deficiencies ,on a one vs one basis , of its offensive/defensive systems against the corresponding of its main competitor).

    A regiment of Iskander-M equipped with Nakidka not detected by a RQ-4 Global Hawk at useful range would lure the US command to order the quick coordinate transference to a “safe” airfield of bombers, fighter, AWACS ,EW aircraft and other assets for a planned air attack, obtaining instead ,as disastrous outcome, that in few minutes you would have that airfield literally reduced to a sprawl of smoking craters; with losses simply incalculable for your side and lacking any systems with the same kinematical qualities of that employed by your opponent you wouldn’t have any chance to respond.
    A division of T-90 followed by a mechanized infantry with BMP-3M or “Smerch” MLRS equipped with Nakidka could effectively use the opponent’s dependency on shared tracking data and quick decision and reaction chain as a powerful weapon against them effectively engaging enemy forces perfectly coordinated for displace themselves, manoeuvre and concentring assets as the area was free of enemy presence; of course,the Nakidka-equipped elements could in this way also exploit at maximum the enormous difference in engagement envelop and fire power enjoyed over the enemy equivalent assets ,with fatal consequences for the opposing forces….. the examples possible are almost infinites.
    When you think at a particular type of warfare concept ,you must image what would be the countermeasures adopted by high end enemies not immensely inferior ones, moreover while you cannot teach to your missile to go farther , to your aircraft to have a greater autonomy, to your air defence to engage more target contemporaneously etc…etc…the military forces of an advanced nation can, with very little modifications to operational process ,force structure or employment of the introduction of purposely designed system greatly influence the delicate system’s architecture at the basis of a force constructed around a Network Centric structure


    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2250
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:24 am

    I never said that the trend for more network based command structures doesn't has it's drawbacks. The ability of guys thousands of km away to micromanage individual firefights is just one of them...

    The increasing vulnerability against electronic warfare is one of them but it is also hardly new and the cold war has seen extensive preparations on both sides to disrupt and trick enemy electronic signals and emissions of all kinds.

    But rattling down a number of possible scenarios how a highly networked high tech force may get it's head banged because of some innovative tactics and technologies doesn't alter the fact that modern forces gain alot by using all kinds of battlefield management systems and command and control networks in a flexible force structure. That Russia is trying to achieve this too with the introduction of new systems and force structures should show you alot.

    Sure a war against a well trained and equipped foe may very well lead to some ugly surprises but this is war. Just because not everything may work as planned doesn't mean new technologies, tactics and force structures are not worth using them. And it's not as if well planned maskirovkas or tricky tactics didn't lure enemies into killzones before. This is not new.

    Now back to Nakidka. I wouldn't believe too much in sales brochures from any company and country. Barracuda is reducing the signature of an AFV. How effective it really is is difficult to say as this is totally dependent on the environment and the stuff used to locate it. A 1st generation TI in a steaming jungle will be much more affected by it than a modern TI somewhere in Norway. Because of this i would be carefull about statements like reducing the radar signature by six times.

    Fact is that Barracuda is available and in use with several AFVs. Nakidka may very well work a bit better but it will not be a fundamental advantage as it's basic features are not unique. Making a warwinning capability out of it reminds me too much of the hype around tube launched ATGMs

    "A regiment of Iskander-M equipped with Nakidka not detected by a RQ-4 Global Hawk at useful range would lure the US command to order the quick coordinate transference to a “safe” airfield of bombers, fighter, AWACS ,EW aircraft and other assets for a planned air attack"

    Why?
    What's compelling the US-forces to do so?
    Like in chess, you can't assume that the enemy voluntarely will move in a manner suitable for you plan, you'll have to force him; to "dictate" him to move in a manner suitable for your plan. You have to "dictate the war to your enemy". If you don't do that, the enemy will dictate the war to you.

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40006
    Points : 40502
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:19 am

    n the big picture the US is overhelmingly in front of everybodythat else that reducing the IR/radar signature of individual tanks is not going to change much.

    Based on what?

    Which enemy has the US fought in the last 60 years that would make any superiority in IR/Radar signature reduction technology worth while?

    Did the VC have helicopters that can detect armour using MMW radar?

    Does Al Quada use thermal imaging sights to find US vehicles?

    Are Taleban IEDs radar directed?

    Even if the Abrams was completely radar invisible it would be to zero advantage to the US.

    Reality tells us the Abrams is not radar invisible and its gas turbine engine gives it an enormous IR signature that would probably allow it to be engaged by short range IR guided AAMs.

    Especially their highly networked force structure is impressive. A modern US heavy division tied into their force structure is really impressive when it comes to punch, agility, reconaissance and responsiveness.

    Doesn't seem to help those they fight along side, or people at weddings.

    So the individual system has less impact on the capability of such a heavy division than with a force which can hardly employ combined arms tactics let alone the sort of networked sea/air/land-battle the US can (I am not referring to Russia here!).

    It (their lack of IR and radar camouflage for individual vehicles) doesn't effect their performance because they have not gone up against an enemy that has the IR and radar capability to exploit that fact.

    The introduction and production of advanced thermal sights and radar equipment however will eventually see the US facing enemies equipped with technology similar to their own.

    For instance the thermal sight on the Javelin is cheap and simple (compared to the thermal sight used in vehicles or aircraft) because it is disposable. US vehicles are just as vulnerable to such weapons as older model Soviet and Russian vehicles because they have IR and radar signatures that don't hide them even with a bunch of branches and leaves piled on top of them. The M1 Abrams has a particularly bad IR signature and the T-80 is in the same boat and for the same basic reason... gas turbines put out a lot of hot exhaust gas.

    That Russia is trying to achieve this too with the introduction of new systems and force structures should show you alot.

    I think the subject of the vulnerability of net centric warfare was likely brought up at your suggestion that the US armed forces don't need to hide because they are so efficient.

    The reality is that everyone needs to hide what they are doing, and the examples given were cases of Nakidka and other methods of fooling the US net centric system, and doesn't even take into account other actions like jamming, intercepting and altering, or simply destroying info gathering assets and communications means.

    Just because not everything may work as planned doesn't mean new technologies, tactics and force structures are not worth using them. And it's not as if well planned maskirovkas or tricky tactics didn't lure enemies into killzones before. This is not new.

    The best deception leads your biggest enemy to fight another smaller enemy of yours...

    A 1st generation TI in a steaming jungle will be much more affected by it than a modern TI somewhere in Norway. Because of this i would be carefull about statements like reducing the radar signature by six times.

    It actually has little to do with thermal imager performance... a targets signature reduced to background levels is to all intents and purposes impossible to track or lock with a thermal sight. Thermal sights already have problems in tropical regions because the ground temperature is often similar to body temperature so humans are hard to separate from the background.
    medo
    medo


    Posts : 4343
    Points : 4423
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  medo Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:52 am

    Like Sun Tzu said, war is art and it consist from both, people and equipment. It's nor everything in equipment. More is in people, their skills, trainings, discipline, strategy, tactics, inteligence, etc.

    Network C4ISR is excellent think, but it is not wise to became dependent on it. Old way with radio, map and compass and clear mind is still good back up in case if network collapse, is jammed or taken by enemy and show you picture, which enemy want you to see.

    Covers as Nakidka and inflatable tanks and other equipment is very useful in war, but units and soldiers still need to camouflage themself and have high camouflage discipline.

    High technology is still not almighty and the best way to gather info about enemy is to have human spy in enemy positions. High technology could be easily fooled with game of mirrors and smoke screen, which is very decisive before real battle start.
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Mindstorm Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:21 pm

    Now back to Nakidka. I wouldn't believe too much in sales brochures from any company and country. Barracuda is reducing the signature of an AFV. How effective it really is is difficult to say as this is totally dependent on the environment and the stuff used to locate it. A 1st generation TI in a steaming jungle will be much more affected by it than a modern TI somewhere in Norway. Because of this i would be carefull about statements like reducing the radar signature by six times.

    NII Stali in reality has declared even more than the reduction of RCS of six times Very Happy
    The Company has in fact declared a reduction of the detection range of unities protected by Nakidka to 1/6 of the normal in a no jammed environment !!!
    See at 5:40 of the video of NII Stali on Nakidka


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpwPx--exs


    Naturally this ,like you well know,is not generated by the mere reduction of RCS or reradiating energy for a particular platform, but by the unique combination with the powerful synergetic effect generated by the ground clutter "inverted noise bell" effect ,which effectively ,for a slow moving ground vehicle multiply several times the effect achieved by any reduction or partial dispersion of radar energy in the radar reradiating cones (this component of ground clutter is also one of the factor leading to the detection of a tank target type by part of a particular radar at ranges being usually a fraction of that relative to an air target of similar overall RCS).

    Fact is that Barracuda is available and in use with several AFVs. Nakidka may very well work a bit better but it will not be a fundamental advantage as it's basic features are not unique. Making a warwinning capability out of it reminds me too much of the hype around tube launched ATGMs

    Remind to you the hype around tube alunched ATGM ? Very strange because to me the "hype" around tube launched ATGM, instead ,remind a whole western military scientifical community of the sector (naturally leaded,as always, by the Germans...) frantically attempting to produce theirs "by far most advanced MBT project" within 50 tons of weight ,with autoloader and ,above all,.....capable to gun fire long range ATGM (MBT-70) or the RAS -Risk Assessment Survey - of US DoD before Desert Storm which ,before decide if a ground operation was a suitable option, give as its first priority to assess if the.... 500 export "T-72-M".....had any operational TI sight and,above all, any capability to gun-fire ATGM , or the TERM project etc.... to me all that appear as the (failed) attempt to don't be forced ,in a very unlucky hypothesis, to fight in a battle as 73 Easting or ,even worse, a Soviet offensive in the Great European Plain, against enemy MBT engaging happily your Abrams MBT, Bradley AFV, M113 APC etc.. with salvo after salvo of AT-8/11 from 4-5 km of range without owning any weapon for respond .
    But naturally the best way to loosen those deep concerns of the western experts's community of the sector is ....to be absolutely sure that those type of weaponries ,even in theirs most downgraded export version ,was not present in the arsenals of the infinitely inferior opponents which you selectively engage in your "power projection" military policy and instead engage with your M1 Abrams and Bradley in the iraqi desert only enormously scaled down T-72-M with a thin full steel armor,vastly downgraded FCS and tracking systems, equiped only with the full steel 3BM17 APFSDS with half propellant and uncapoable to employ any type of standoff gun fired ATGM and ,after the war, praise the miraculous advantages provided by networked information, situational awareness superiority and data sharing capabilities .
    And that is a tactic which garantee a sure success Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Why?
    What's compelling the US-forces to do so?

    Because,at example,that is exactly what US-Forces did in virtually any pasted conflict in the last 20 years?
    I image that you have have read GWAPS and have realized as even only bring in a theatre (in this istance in the airfields offered to NATO forces by Saudi Arabia) the assets to even only prepare an air campaign against an enemy with a weak and largely outdated AD structure, is a critical process ,very very slow and during which your vulnerability to almost any type of enemy attack (except if you already own in the place and extensive,very strong IAD....pratically a non-existent istance for any Air Forces involved in any power projection mission around the world) is simply enormous ; so become a true strategic "dictat" attempt to complete those operations as quickly as possible capitalizing at maximum the flow of shared informations of the presence of enemy menaces coming from surveillance and tracking sensor network .


    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2250
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:21 pm


    Is NII providing exact comparisons of Nakidka vs different kinds of Radars and TIs? That's where the problem is. Just like with the zillions of Air Force threads here generalisation is not possible with such a complex topic as detection of an AFV by a multidude of different systems.

    As for network centric warfare. Do you think any other country could have pulled of the same like what the US did in the conventional phase of OIF? Their ability to effectively integrate their whole air, land and sea forces during this campaign shows how far away from the rest of the world they are.

    And all these theories about some specific hypotetical situations always seem to assume that some clever tactics and technologies give the US a headache. But this is war and I doubt that military planners think that every country will be a pushover like Iraq. Some losses to the US doesn't make the other side win the war.


    Not to talk of the fact that in all these scenarios the other side seems under no pressure by the US-NATO ability to disrupt and destroy their command, control and support infrastructure...

    The US as well as the Russians were lured into more local defeats by the germans than one can count during WWII. Did this made them loose the war?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40006
    Points : 40502
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:35 pm

    All I can say is that the measure/countermeasure war will continue forever, but at the moment my money is on the Russian nakidka kit to give them an edge against a capable enemy.

    Not US or NATO because tanks don't mean anything in such a conflict... that is when you count TOPOLs and Sinevas.

    For other forces fighting the US it is not about winning, it is about inflicting enough losses to make them leave... and in such a conflict ICBMs and F-22s means nothing.

    For the Russians it is pretty much the same deal, and things like Nakidka are useful because just as in the conflict with Georgia in 2008 the Georgians were tied into the NATO air defence net and probably got their targeting info from Turkey. They likely also had decent night vision equipment, but just having a thermal sight is not enough to fight at night.

    The potential for the US to hand Javelin ATGMs is enough to warrant the development and production of Nakidka kits and deploying them... and also to use Smerch whereever possible.. Smile
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:36 am

    What do guys think about the new T-90AM from Gur Khan blog

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_3131.html
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyberspec Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:40 pm

    Austin wrote:What do guys think about the new T-90AM from Gur Khan blog

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_3131.html

    It's definitely an improvement of the T-90A.


    And now a little treat...Cool

    T-95 art from 'Popular Mechanics' (posted by 'cromeshnic' at the Otvaga site)...what a MONSTER Twisted Evil

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Th_181048486_T_95_122_134lo T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Th_181059259_T_95_0_122_298lo T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Th_181070390_T_95_1_122_474lo
    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Th_181082501_T_95_2_122_356lo T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Th_181092285_T_95_3_122_58lo


    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:48 pm

    The firepower and protection level seams deadly , although it has a higher turret but its also well protected , This was a single shot kill weapon for any NATO tank from any angle.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:05 am

    Thanks Garry

    T-90M https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img577/1255/nizhnijtagil1.jpg

    Interestingly they are not showing the rear of the turret which can prove it got a rear turret bustle loader
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:08 am

    http://savepic.org/2180294.jpg ( via void )

    1. system for internal and external comms
    2. machine gun installation
    3. panoramic commanders sights
    4. combined gunners sight sosna-u
    5. smoke grenade system
    6. gun droop compensator
    7. smoothbore 2A46M-5
    8. Relikt
    9. Information-controlled suspension (whatever that means)
    10. automatic transmission
    11. anti-rpg grills
    12. 1130hp multi-fuel diesel
    13. FCS Kalina

    Sponsored content


    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 5 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 08, 2024 2:13 am