T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.
Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.
My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.
In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.
Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.
Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......
galicije83 wrote:T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.
Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.
My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.
In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.
Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.
Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......
No you tell us first, what anxiolytic you mixed with crack cocaine this morning.
galicije83 wrote:T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.
Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.
My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.
In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.
Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.
Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......
No you tell us first, what anxiolytic you mixed with crack cocaine this morning.
The proposal of IG "Azov" of the project "Tirex" is a deep modernization of T-64, which, according to developers, allows to solve two crucial problems of today, and one - a perspective. First. Ensure rapid saturation tank and mechanized units of model equipment, which by its combat effectiveness will be comparable, and the introduction of tactical control system - and exceed the "BM" Hold "is probably the most modern Ukrainian tank.
According to the criterion of "cost-effectiveness", "Tirex", as claimed by its creators, will exceed the capabilities of the T-64 in the form of BM "Bulat", in particular on mobility and the use of the tank weapons at night, but have a comparable price parameters
It will also allow painlessly and cost-effectively upgrade individual components and platforms as new components and improved manufacturing system. "Our position is that the T-64 in Ukraine the existing fleet allows you to quickly create on its basis a new machine with the necessary combat capability.
In terms of features, they are comparable to the most modern armored combat vehicles of our enemy, including the highly publicized "Armata". But our project - it's not the future of the tank, it's a massive tank for today and for a certain transition period.
Marines May Protect Tanks With Active and EW Protection Systems, Much Like Ship Self-Defense
USMC considering Trophy systems for armored vehicles. You thoughts ?
As anti-tank threats are growing increasingly sophisticated, the Marine Corps is looking at protecting its ground vehicles with active protection and electronic warfare systems to fend off incoming rounds the same way ships and planes do today.
Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said at a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that as technology proliferates, the anti-tank threat is rapidly evolving. The Navy is investing in protecting its ships and aircraft from similar threats, and Walsh said it’s time for the Marine Corps to take the same approach for its ground vehicles.
“When we start getting threats on our aircraft, our helicopters, our fixed wing aircraft, [from] infrared missiles, we quickly put out a capability to defeat those types of missiles,” he said.
“Now we’re seeing the threat on the ground changing, becoming a much more sophisticated threat on the ground. What we’ve continued to do is up-armor our capabilities on the ground, put armor on them. We’ve got to start thinking more with a higher technology capability, with vehicle protective systems, active protective systems that can defeat anti-tank guided munitions, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) … along with soft capability, which is the technology our aircraft have.”
To that end, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Army to test out the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (APS). The Army is leasing four systems and will experiment with their Stryker combat vehicle and M1A2 tanks. The Marine Corps is currently modifying some of its M1A1 tanks to install mounts for the Trophy system, and the service will later work with the Army to test the protective system on the Marine tanks against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs, he told USNI News after the hearing.
The Trophy system has both an active and a soft component. When sensors detect an incoming threat, the active system fires small rounds to deflect the threat, Walsh said, noting that “when they’re going that fast, it doesn’t take much to deflect them away.”
The soft side uses jammers in the same way ship and aircraft self-protection systems do.
“The anti-ship missiles are getting better and better, so the Navy’s having to continue to put better capabilities on the ships to be able to defeat it,” he said, with the Marine Corps now seeing those same advances in anti-tank technologies.
“I think that’s the side we’re really going to benefit from the Navy capabilities, because the Navy has some very good EW (electronic warfare) capabilities. So getting into our warfare centers and working with the Navy on how to get better at electronic warfare capabilities, that’s the soft side of it.”
Walsh added that the Marines are also investing in unmanned aerial systems to help with reconnaissance, to try to find the enemy before they can launch missiles at American tanks. Even with more eyes in the sky, the enemy will still be able to fire off shots, and Walsh said the Marines need to do better than simply adding more armor to protect personnel inside from blasts.
With all the extra armor, the vehicles are getting so heavy that mobility is suffering, he said.
“And certainly being with the Navy, coming from the sea, we want to be able to be lighter and quicker,” Walsh said. “And so I think technology is getting smaller – we talk about that all the time – the technology and processors are getting smaller to allow us to put it … on each individual vehicle in the future.”
More broadly, Walsh said at the hearing that the Marine Corps is in the midst of conducting a force structure assessment to understand what type of force and of what size it will need to succeed in the future operating environment, much like the Navy is conducting an FSA to inform future ship count requirements.
“In fact I just left the commandant and senior leadership just before I came over here, and we’re conducting our force structure assessment, and it’s all projecting into that future operating environment,” Walsh told the senators.
“And we see this as probably the most complex operating environment, both at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly at the higher end of the spectrum. And we have not really seen since the Cold War these types of capabilities, when you start getting into precision weapons, ability to sense the area and also working in the electromagnetic spectrum.”
They never heard of RPG-30
Trophy has a number of different issues, some of which have been criticized by the US
back when they originally rejected Trophy in 2006.
Trophy uses a multi-EFP countermeasure, i.e. a metal box/tube with multiple pre-made indentations, which is containing an explosive charge. Upon detonation the indentations will form small EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will be used as a "shotgun-like" cloud of EFPs/fragments to destroy the missile/RPG. This however means that there is a higher chance of injuring dismounted soldiers and civilians. According to official figures from the Israeli company Rafael (manufacturer of Trophy), the chance of injuring an allied soldier/civilian is just 1%. However the IDF has different doctrines (e.g. there Namer only serves as battle taxi, infantry doesn't operate directly alongside armored vehicles) and thus the figures might not be valid for the US. At least the US Army considered Trophy to be too dangerous compared to other alternatives.
Multi-EFP warheads cannot defeat KE penetrators such as
Another issue of Trophy is the launcher design. Trophy's launcher can only hold one interceptor at a time, hence it is required to have a large and bulky autoloader (which in case of the Merkava 4M replaces some of the side armor). After firing the countermeasure, the autoloader has to reload the launcher, for which the launcher has to rotate into neutral position. Given Trophy only uses two launchers (one each side) and that the launchers do not overlap (coverage is only ~180-200° per launcher), this means that Trophy cannot intercept two RPGs/missiles at the same time (or fired in a short intervall).
On the original autoloader prototype, there was only storage for 3 countermeasures. For restocking/reloading the autoloader, the crew has to leave the vehicle and manually insert the countermeasures after opening a hatch to the autoloader. This cannot be done in combat.
Then there is the reaction time. According to estimates/measurements published in a German defence magazine, Trophy has a reaction time of 300-400 milliseconds. So if an RPG is launched from close range (say 50 metres / 150 feet) and has a muzzle velocity of about 150 m/s, then Trophy won't be able to intercept the RPG before it impacts on the tank/APC.
Somebody has measured the time required for reloading Trophy in a marketing video from Rafael. It takes 1.74 seconds to reload and turn the launcher to 90° from the tank. This means a fast-flying missile/RPG (300-400 mps) cannot be intercepted when fired from closer than 500-700 metres!
Other active protection systems like LEDS-150 from SAAB, AVePs from Diehl or box-based systems like (AMAP-)ADS and Arena do offer more ready to use countermeasures, less probability of injuring allied soliders/civilians and have overlapping launchers.
Marines May Protect Tanks With Active and EW Protection Systems, Much Like Ship Self-Defense
USMC considering Trophy systems for armored vehicles. You thoughts ?
As anti-tank threats are growing increasingly sophisticated, the Marine Corps is looking at protecting its ground vehicles with active protection and electronic warfare systems to fend off incoming rounds the same way ships and planes do today.
Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said at a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that as technology proliferates, the anti-tank threat is rapidly evolving. The Navy is investing in protecting its ships and aircraft from similar threats, and Walsh said it’s time for the Marine Corps to take the same approach for its ground vehicles.
“When we start getting threats on our aircraft, our helicopters, our fixed wing aircraft, [from] infrared missiles, we quickly put out a capability to defeat those types of missiles,” he said.
“Now we’re seeing the threat on the ground changing, becoming a much more sophisticated threat on the ground. What we’ve continued to do is up-armor our capabilities on the ground, put armor on them. We’ve got to start thinking more with a higher technology capability, with vehicle protective systems, active protective systems that can defeat anti-tank guided munitions, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) … along with soft capability, which is the technology our aircraft have.”
To that end, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Army to test out the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (APS). The Army is leasing four systems and will experiment with their Stryker combat vehicle and M1A2 tanks. The Marine Corps is currently modifying some of its M1A1 tanks to install mounts for the Trophy system, and the service will later work with the Army to test the protective system on the Marine tanks against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs, he told USNI News after the hearing.
The Trophy system has both an active and a soft component. When sensors detect an incoming threat, the active system fires small rounds to deflect the threat, Walsh said, noting that “when they’re going that fast, it doesn’t take much to deflect them away.”
The soft side uses jammers in the same way ship and aircraft self-protection systems do.
“The anti-ship missiles are getting better and better, so the Navy’s having to continue to put better capabilities on the ships to be able to defeat it,” he said, with the Marine Corps now seeing those same advances in anti-tank technologies.
“I think that’s the side we’re really going to benefit from the Navy capabilities, because the Navy has some very good EW (electronic warfare) capabilities. So getting into our warfare centers and working with the Navy on how to get better at electronic warfare capabilities, that’s the soft side of it.”
Walsh added that the Marines are also investing in unmanned aerial systems to help with reconnaissance, to try to find the enemy before they can launch missiles at American tanks. Even with more eyes in the sky, the enemy will still be able to fire off shots, and Walsh said the Marines need to do better than simply adding more armor to protect personnel inside from blasts.
With all the extra armor, the vehicles are getting so heavy that mobility is suffering, he said.
“And certainly being with the Navy, coming from the sea, we want to be able to be lighter and quicker,” Walsh said. “And so I think technology is getting smaller – we talk about that all the time – the technology and processors are getting smaller to allow us to put it … on each individual vehicle in the future.”
More broadly, Walsh said at the hearing that the Marine Corps is in the midst of conducting a force structure assessment to understand what type of force and of what size it will need to succeed in the future operating environment, much like the Navy is conducting an FSA to inform future ship count requirements.
“In fact I just left the commandant and senior leadership just before I came over here, and we’re conducting our force structure assessment, and it’s all projecting into that future operating environment,” Walsh told the senators.
“And we see this as probably the most complex operating environment, both at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly at the higher end of the spectrum. And we have not really seen since the Cold War these types of capabilities, when you start getting into precision weapons, ability to sense the area and also working in the electromagnetic spectrum.”
They never heard of RPG-30
Trophy has a number of different issues, some of which have been criticized by the US
back when they originally rejected Trophy in 2006.
Trophy uses a multi-EFP countermeasure, i.e. a metal box/tube with multiple pre-made indentations, which is containing an explosive charge. Upon detonation the indentations will form small EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will be used as a "shotgun-like" cloud of EFPs/fragments to destroy the missile/RPG. This however means that there is a higher chance of injuring dismounted soldiers and civilians. According to official figures from the Israeli company Rafael (manufacturer of Trophy), the chance of injuring an allied soldier/civilian is just 1%. However the IDF has different doctrines (e.g. there Namer only serves as battle taxi, infantry doesn't operate directly alongside armored vehicles) and thus the figures might not be valid for the US. At least the US Army considered Trophy to be too dangerous compared to other alternatives.
Multi-EFP warheads cannot defeat KE penetrators such as
Another issue of Trophy is the launcher design. Trophy's launcher can only hold one interceptor at a time, hence it is required to have a large and bulky autoloader (which in case of the Merkava 4M replaces some of the side armor). After firing the countermeasure, the autoloader has to reload the launcher, for which the launcher has to rotate into neutral position. Given Trophy only uses two launchers (one each side) and that the launchers do not overlap (coverage is only ~180-200° per launcher), this means that Trophy cannot intercept two RPGs/missiles at the same time (or fired in a short intervall).
On the original autoloader prototype, there was only storage for 3 countermeasures. For restocking/reloading the autoloader, the crew has to leave the vehicle and manually insert the countermeasures after opening a hatch to the autoloader. This cannot be done in combat.
Then there is the reaction time. According to estimates/measurements published in a German defence magazine, Trophy has a reaction time of 300-400 milliseconds. So if an RPG is launched from close range (say 50 metres / 150 feet) and has a muzzle velocity of about 150 m/s, then Trophy won't be able to intercept the RPG before it impacts on the tank/APC.
Somebody has measured the time required for reloading Trophy in a marketing video from Rafael. It takes 1.74 seconds to reload and turn the launcher to 90° from the tank. This means a fast-flying missile/RPG (300-400 mps) cannot be intercepted when fired from closer than 500-700 metres!
Other active protection systems like LEDS-150 from SAAB, AVePs from Diehl or box-based systems like (AMAP-)ADS and Arena do offer more ready to use countermeasures, less probability of injuring allied soliders/civilians and have overlapping launchers.
Saturation is an easy answer. And actually the Trophy will be able to intercept the first threat. The issue is with the followup in a dense environment.
The answer is always to overwhelm the APS system. It is similiar to Battleships, they are capable of intercepting Anti Ship Missiles, but the question is how many in what short time are necessary to destroy it. That is why the tactic is to flood it and overwhelm the defensive capabilities aswell to assure a destruction and not just damaging it. Tanks and ships are equal subjects to such tactics.
Werewolf wrote:The answer is always to overwhelm the APS system. It is similiar to Battleships, they are capable of intercepting Anti Ship Missiles, but the question is how many in what short time are necessary to destroy it. That is why the tactic is to flood it and overwhelm the defensive capabilities aswell to assure a destruction and not just damaging it. Tanks and ships are equal subjects to such tactics.
You can also launch a multiple decoy fake missile to confuse the tank radars ,followed close by a real one. that will be very effective if done right ,because the tanks radars will be unable to differentiate between a real Missile versus a fake decoy that looks identical in radars to a real missile.
Watch South Korea's First Homemade Tank Strut Its Stuff By Kyle Mizokami | May 3, 2016
At $8.5 million, the K-2 Black Panther is one of the most expensive tanks ever built.
A new drone-captured video on YouTube shows off the South Korea's new main battle tank, offering spectacular aerial views of the K-2 "Black Panther" in the field, complete with firing smoke dischargers and wading a river.
The K-2 is South Korea's first locally designed and produced tank. Although development was completed in 2007, problems with the transmission and engine delayed production. The problem was temporarily solved by sourcing German power packs for the first 100 vehicles, to be replaced with a Korean-made power pack for subsequent production models. The first K-2s entered service in 2014 Roughly four hundred tanks will be built, replacing South Korea's obsolete M48 Patton tanks.
The K-2 is roughly comparable to the French LeClerc and the American M1 Abrams. It has the same German-designed 120-millimeter main gun as the Abrams, but with a longer barrel to boost projectile velocity. An automatic loader replaces a human loader, reducing the crew to three. It reportedly can feed the gun one round every three seconds. The K-2 has a radar autotracker, allowing the main gun to lock onto and follow a moving enemy tank or low-flying aircraft.
Another standout capability of the K-2 lies in the Korean Standoff Top Attack Munition (KSTAM) munition. KSTAM is fired from the main gun at long range and, like artillery, can attack targets beyond the line of sight. After it's shot into a target area, KSTAM deploys a parachute and turns on its sensor package, including a millimetric wave radar and infra-red sensor. Once it detects a target, it fires an explosively forged penetrator into the enemy's thin top armor. A weapon system like KSTAM is particularly useful in South Korea's mountainous terrain.
The K-2 is smaller than many tanks, weighing a trim 55 tons. It has a peppy horsepower to weight (ton) ratio of 27.2, approximately 20 percent better than a late model Abrams tank. The tank's hydropneumatic suspension system can lower its profile by 16 inches, making it less vulnerable to enemy fire.
In wartime, the K-2 would square off against the North Korean People's Army's Ch'ŏnma-ho and Pokpung-ho tanks. Both are upgrades of older Soviet-era tanks and are inferior to the K-2 in every way.
M60 Tank Service Life Extension Program Published on May 6, 2016
In response to modern battlefield needs, Raytheon offers the Service Life Extension Program to re-design and re-equip current M-60A3 tanks giving them significant tactical advantages.
How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia 3:30 PM ET BY PATRICK TUCKER Here: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/05/how-pentagon-preparing-tank-war-russia/128460/?oref=d-topstory
When Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster briefs, it’s like Gen. Patton giving a TED talk — a domineering physical presence with bristling intellectual intensity.
These days, the charismatic commander of the U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command is knee-deep in a project called The Russia New Generation Warfare study, an analysis of how Russia is re-inventing land warfare in the mud of Eastern Ukraine. Speaking recently at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., McMaster said that the two-year-old conflict had revealed that the Russians have superior artillery firepower, better combat vehicles, and have learned sophisticated use of UAVs for tactical effect. Should U.S. forces find themselves in a land war with Russia, he said, they would be in for a rude, cold awakening.
“We spend a long time talking about winning long-range missile duels,” said McMaster. But long-range missiles only get you through the front door. The question then becomes what will you do when you get there.
“Look at the enemy countermeasures,” he said, noting Russia’s use of nominally semi-professional forces who are capable of “dispersion, concealment, intermingling with civilian populations…the ability to disrupt our network strike capability, precision navigation and timing capabilities.” All of that means “you’re probably going to have a close fight… Increasingly, close combat overmatch is an area we’ve neglected, because we’ve taken it for granted.”
So how do you restore overmatch? The recipe that’s emerging from the battlefield of Ukraine, says McMaster, is more artillery and better artillery, a mix of old and new.
Cross-Domain Fires
“We’re out-ranged by a lot of these systems and they employ improved conventional munitions, which we are going away from. There will be a 40- to 60-percent reduction in lethality in the systems that we have,” he said. “Remember that we already have fewer artillery systems. Now those fewer artillery systems will be less effective relative to the enemy. So we need to do something on that now.”
To remedy that, McMaster is looking into a new area called “cross domain fires,” which would outfit ground units to hit a much wider array of targets. “When an Army fires unit arrives somewhere, it should be able to do surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and shore-to-ship capabilities. We are developing that now and there are some really promising capabilities,” he said.
While the full report has not been made public, “a lot of this is available open source” said McMaster, “in the work that Phil Karber has done, for example.”
Karber, the president of the Potomac Foundation, went on a fact-finding mission to Ukraine last year, and returned with the conclusion that the United States had long overemphasized precision artillery on the battlefield at the expense of mass fires. Since the 1980s, he said last October, at an Association for the United States Army event, the U.S. has given up its qualitative edge, mostly by getting rid of cluster munitions.
Munitions have advanced incredibly since then. One of the most terrifying weapons that the Russians are using on the battlefield are thermobaric warheads, weapons that are composed almost entirely of fuel and burn longer and with more intensity than other types of munitions.
“In a 3-minute period…a Russian fire strike wiped out two mechanized battalions [with] a combination of top-attack munitions and thermobaric warheads,” said Karber. “If you have not experienced or seen the effects of thermobaric warheads, start taking a hard look. They might soon be coming to a theater near you.”
Karber also noted that Russian forces made heavy and integrated use of electronic warfare. It’s used to identify fire sources and command posts and to shut down voice and data communications. In the northern section, he said, “every single tactical radio [the Ukrainian forces] had was taken out by heavy Russian sector-wide EW.” Other EW efforts had taken down Ukrainian quadcopters. Another system was being used to mess with the electrical fuses on Ukrainian artillery shells, ”so when they hit, they’re duds,” he said.
Karber also said the pro-Russian troops in Donbas were using an overlapping mobile radar as well as a new man-portable air defense that’s “integrated into their network and can’t be spoofed by [infrared] decoys” or flares.
Combat Vehicles and Defenses
The problems aren’t just with rockets and shells, McMaster said. Even American combat vehicles have lost their edge.
“The Bradley [Fighting Vehicle] is great,” he said, but “what we see now is that our enemies have caught up to us. They’ve invested in combat vehicles. They’ve invested in advanced protective systems and active protective systems. We’ve got to get back ahead on combat vehicle development.”
If the war in Eastern Ukraine were a real-world test, the Russian T-90 tank passed with flying colors. The tank had seen action in Dagestan and Syria, but has been particularly decisive in Ukraine. The Ukrainians, Karber said, “have not been able to record one single kill on a T-90. They have the new French optics on them. The Russians actually designed them to take advantage of low light, foggy, winter conditions.”
What makes the T-90 so tough? For starters, explosive reactive armor. When you fire a missile at the tank, its skin of metal plates and explosives reacts. The explosive charge clamps the plates together so the rocket can’t pierce the hull.
But that’s only if the missile gets close enough. The latest thing in vehicle defense is active protection systems, or APS, which automatically spot incoming shells and target them with electronic jammers or just shoot them down. “It might use electronics to ‘confuse’ an incoming round, or it might use mass (outgoing bullets, rockets) to destroy the incoming round before it gets too close,” Army director for basic research Jeff Singleton told Defense One in an email.
The T-90’s active protective system is the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite. “I’ve interviewed Ukrainian tank gunners,” said Karber. “They’ll say ‘I had my [anti-tank weapon] right on it, it got right up to it and then they had this miraculous shield. An invisible shield. Suddenly, my anti-tank missile just went up to the sky.’”
The Pentagon is well behind some other militaries on this research. Israeli forces declared its Trophy APS operational in 2009, integrated it onto tanks since 2010, and has been using it to protect Israeli tank soldiers from Hamas rockets ever since.
Singleton said the United States is looking to give its Abrams tank the Trophy, which uses buckshot-like guns to down incoming fire without harming nearby troops.
The Army is also experimenting with the Israeli-made Iron Curtain APS for the Stryker, which works similarly, and one for the Bradley that has yet to be named. Raytheon has a system called the Quick Kill that uses a scanned array radar and a small missile to shoot down incoming projectiles.
Anti-Drone Defenses
One of the defining features of the war in Eastern Ukraine is the use of drones by both sides, not to target high-value terrorists but to direct fire in the same way forces used the first combat aircraft in World War I.
The past has a funny way of re-inventing itself, says McMaster.
“I never had to look up in my whole career and say, ‘Is it friendly or enemy?’ because of the U.S. Air Force. We have to do that now,” said McMaster. “Our Air Force gave us an unprecedented period of air supremacy…that changed the dynamics of ground combat. Now, you can’t bank on that.”
Pro-Russian forces use as many as 16 types of UAVs for targeting.
Russian forces are known to have “a 90-kilometer [Multiple Launch Rocket System] round, that goes out, parachute comes up, a UAV pops out, wings unfold, and they fly it around, it can strike a mobile target” said Karber, who said he wasn’t sure it had yet been used in Ukraine.
Karber’s track record for accuracy is less than perfect, as writer Jeffrey Lewis has pointed out in Foreign Policy. At various points, he has inflated estimates of China’s nuclear arsenal from some 300 weapons (based on declassified estimates) to 3,000 squirreled away in mysterious tunnels, a claim that many were able to quickly debunk. In 2014, he helped pass photos to Sen. James Inhofe of the Senate Armed Services Committee that purported to be recent images of Russian forces inside Ukraine. It turned out they were AP photographs from 2008.
“In the haste of running for the airport and trying to respond to a last-minute request with short time fuse,” Karber said by way of explanation, “I made the mistake of believing we were talking about the same photos … and it never occurred to me that the three photos of Russian armor were part of that package or being considered.”
No Foolproof Technological Solution
All of these technologies could shape the future battlefield, but none of them are silver bullets, nor do they, in McMaster’s view, offset the importance of human beings in gaining territory, holding territory, and changing facts on the ground to align with mission objectives.
As the current debate about the authorization for the use of force in Iraq shows, the commitment of large numbers of U.S. ground troops to conflict has become a political nonstarter for both parties. In lieu of a political willingness to put troops in the fight, multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic forces will take the lead, just as they are doing now in Iraq and Syria.
“What’s necessary is political accommodation, is what needs to happen, if we don’t conduct operations and plan campaigns in a way that gets to the political accommodation,” he said. “The most important activity will be to broker political ceasefires and understandings.”
The State Enterprise Malyshev Plant in Ukraine is marketing its latest 1,500 hp diesel powerpack as a potential upgrade for existing main battle tanks (MBTs) or installation in newly built MBTs.
The Malyshev Plant has manufactured more than 20,000 MBT engines and its latest development is a compact diesel powerpack that comprises the liquid-cooled 6TD-series six-cylinder, two-stroke multifuel supercharged engine.
The engine features direct fuel injection, a lubrication system, a powerpack top deck with ejection-type cooling system, an uprated transmission, and a hydraulic control and transmission lubrication system. Hull component parts include the air cleaner, air inlet device, and gas duct.
According to the Malyshev Plant, its ejection-type cooling system enables the MBT to operate in high ambient temperatures of up to 55°C without loss of power when using diesel fuel.
The highly efficient cassette/cyclone air filter is claimed to ensure air filtration with an efficiency rating of up to 99.8%, which is critical for operating in desert conditions.
The air-tight powerpack enables the MBT to wade to a maximum depth of up to 1.8 m without preparation and the compact design enables it to be installed co-axially with the side gearboxes. The company is also marketing its reversible transmission for use with the 6TD-series engine, which is claimed to improve forward and reverse speeds.
The top deck is provided with thermal protection to reduce the exhaust signature.
The company's smaller 3TD family of diesel engines features outputs of 280 to 600 hp and the larger 5TD with outputs of 700 to 1,050 hp for MBT applications. The 3, 5, and 6 in the designation denotes the number of cylinders.
The company also supplies auxiliary power units (APUs) that are typically installed in MBTs to enable their main engines to be shut down while maintaining operation of its electronic subsystems.
Ukrane 6TD six-cylinder diesel engine from the Malyshev Plant develops 1,500 hp. Photo @Christopher F Foss
max steel wrote:Your thoughts on Strong Europe Tank Challenge, every country used their own equipment for which the crews were trained. ?
new German tank – the MBT Revolution
The Americans came 3rd or 4th place if I remember correctly. I wasn't shocked, The US likes to hype up their training and vehicles way more then it should be. Germans smoked them.
Raytheon Breathes New Life Into Patton Tanks [USA] Jen Judson, Defense News 11:57 a.m. EDT June 5, 2016
Here: http://www.defensenews.com/story/...
WASHINGTON — Raytheon, in concert with the US Army, has put together a package of upgrades to modernize 1960s-era Patton tanks still used by many Middle Eastern countries.
The effort is a procurement formula for bringing old equipment up to speed in an era where most countries' defense spending budgets are declining and the idea of building anything new from the ground up is rarity.
“I think the recipe we have, modernization through sustainment, is going to be a key mechanism for the US to move through this period,” he said.
And that strategy will likely be employed by countless other countries around the world as well.
Take the M60 Patton tank, for example. It became the standard main battle tank for the US Army in the 1960s, but was replaced by the M1 Abrams 20 years later. Yet, there are still Patton tanks used by countries around the world and there are estimated to be about 7,000 to 10,000 of them used by countries in the Middle East, Probert said.
Raytheon said it was aware of tanks remaining in Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon, Israel, Thailand and Taiwan.
Eurosatory 2016: French Army Leclerc renovation Published on Jun 13, 2016
In this video filmed at Eurosatory 2016, Christopher F Foss, Editor, IHS Jane's Land Warfare Platforms discusses the renovation of the French Leclerc Main Battle Tank.
Rheinmetall Weapon and Munition has unveiled a new 130 mm smoothbore tank gun at Eurosatory 2016 in Paris.
Development of the gun commenced in 2015, with the company using internal funding for the project. The first technical demonstrator (TD) was completed in May 2016.
After Eurosatory the gun will commence its firing trials from a static stand at Rheinmetall's proving ground, where its performance will be compared to the extensive simulation work already carried out on the weapon and its ammunition.
The new 130 mm smoothbore gun is an L/51 weapon and has a vertical sliding breech mechanism, increased chamber volume, and is chrome lined. However, it is not fitted with a muzzle brake.
Only scant details of the 130 mm L/51 tank gun have been released by Rheinmetall, with the company quoting an all-up weight of 3,000 kg, which includes the recoil system - the barrel alone is stated as weighing 1,400 kg.
The example shown at Eurosatory 2016 is fitted with a thermal sleeve and muzzle reference system (MRS) and these will be fitted for the upcoming firing trials. The MRS enables the weapon to be bore sighted on a more regular basis and without the crew needing to leave the platform.
In parallel with the new gun, Rheinmetall is developing a new generation armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) round, which will feature a semi-combustible cartridge case, new propellant, and a new advanced long rod tungsten penetrator.
This will be followed by new 130 mm high-explosive air-bursting munition (HE ABM) that will have a number of fuze options depending on the target.
This HE ABM round will leverage from technology from the 120 mm DM11 HE ABM, currently in production for the home and export markets for use with Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/44 and L/55 smoothbore tank guns installed on Leopard 2 main battle tanks (MBTs).
Photo: JPW FIDES
Rheinmetall’s new IFV, the Lynx 14 Jun 2016
Here: www.rheinmetall-defence.com
Firepower, force protection, C4I, manoeuvrability, versatility
At Eurosatory 2016 Rheinmetall presented its new Lynx infantry fighting vehicle today to the international public for the first time. Agile, hard-hitting and highly protected, this state-of-the-art tracked armoured vehicle is destined to dominate the modern battlefield, lending itself to operations from peace enforcement to high-intensity combat.
Ben Hudson, Head of Rheinmetall’s Vehicle Systems Division, said "Lynx is an advanced new modular family of vehicles that offers our customers the highest levels of survivability, mobility, lethality and capacity while utilising proven technologies to deliver a compelling value proposition for our global customers. Lynx delivers the capabilities that will allow our customers to fight, survive and win on the battlefields of today and tomorrow".
Cutting edge capabilities
Four core capabilities characterize the Lynx infantry fighting vehicle: firepower, force protection, situational awareness and mobility.
Firepower: Lynx features a Rheinmetall LANCE turret armed with a stabilized, externally powered, airburst-capable automatic cannon (either 30mm or 35mm). This enables Lynx to effectively engage targets with high precision at ranges of up to 3,000 metres – even on the move. Lynx can also be equipped with an antitank guided missile launcher and a secondary weapon station linked to the main optics (main sensor slaved armament). Not only does Lynx have hunter-killer capability, it can operate in killer-killer mode, since the commander and gunner can observe and engage targets independently of each other.
Force protection: With the diesel engine mounted in the forward section and a modular armour concept, the vehicle architecture offers a high degree of protection. The vehicle’s ballistic armour shields Lynx from antitank weapons, medium-calibre ammunition, artillery shrapnel, IEDs and bomblets. In addition, a spall liner in the vehicle interior protects the entire crew. Mine and IED protection packages, decoupled seats and the optional hard kill Active Defence System (ADS) significantly boost the vehicle’s survivability.
Situational awareness: The commander and gunner both have access to the Stabilized Electro Optical Sight System/SEOSS, a digital TV - IR optical system with an integrated laser range finder and fire control computer. In the fighting compartment, displays provide the crew with a seamless 360° panoramic view. Rheinmetall’s Situational Awareness System (SAS), featuring automatic target detection and tracking, enhances the hunter-killer capability and minimizes crew reaction time. Emerging threats can be swiftly engaged with Lynx’s main or secondary armament. Laser warning sensors and the Acoustic Sniper Locating System (ASLS) likewise form part of the sensor suite. A combat management system and intercom for tactical communication round out the array of on-board equipment.
Owing to the manned turret, the commander can still lead from the hatch. The gunner and driver each have hatches, too, while two soldiers in the rear of the fighting compartment can also observe the area around the vehicle from an open hatch.
Mobility: Lynx features an excellent power-to-weight ratio and can handle gradients of up to 60 degrees and lateral inclines of more than 30 degrees. It can cross ditches up to 2.5 metres wide and ford bodies of water up to 1.50 metres deep. Furthermore, it can climb over one-metre-high obstacles. The vehicle can run on either rubber or light metal tracks.
One vehicle family – one logistics system – one supplier: Rheinmetall
Another characteristic of Lynx is its versatility. For example, the new IFV comes in two versions: the KF31 and KF41 (KF stands for ‘Kettenfahrzeug’, or tracked vehicle in German). Weighing up to 38 tonnes, Lynx KF31 on display at Eurosatory and can seat 3+6 soldiers. Lynx KF41 is slightly larger and can carry 3+8 soldiers.
Both vehicle classes – Lynx KF31 and Lynx KF41 – can be configured for other roles include a command & control, an armoured reconnaissance, repair & recovery and an ambulance.
A high degree of commonality in parts and components is another prominent feature of the Lynx family of vehicles. This simplifies logistic support and has a positive impact on training. Furthermore, customized service support is available worldwide – ranging from training and logistics to in-theatre repairs and technology transfer.
The Lynx family of vehicles highlights once again Rheinmetall’s role as a high-tech enterprise for security and mobility.
Akula1.0 wrote:A friend of mine referred me to this video, and well, it's too funny not to post. Didn't want to do it in the main discussion forum though, so this seems better. Get ready to laugh
His videos have been discussed here before, the guy's a fool, peddling poor information to other fools on youtube.
I honestly did not bother to watch his video after his first "Gotcha" rebuttal about the T-14's weight, lol.... No shit Sherlock, there's plenty of old outdated MBT's that are lighter, it is obviously referring to the T-14 being lightest of its modern rivals, which it indisputably is.
Ukraine Main Battle Tank OPLOT Published on May 26, 2017
The up-to-date Ukrainian BM OPLOT tank is intended for effective day and night combat use under adverse environmental, climatic and weather conditions including those under high temperatures of the surrounding air and high dust loading. The following were introduced: the multifuel engine, the transmission with extended speed range and complex system of movement control, the autonomous power unit for power supply when the vehicle is parked, the unique explosive reactive armour protection against tandem HEAT and APFSDS projectiles, the effective complex system of detection and optical-electronic suppression of the enemy’s guidance and sighting devices, the up-to-date sighting and observation complex with thermal imager, the digital ballistic computer and navigational support system. The capability of targets destruction by missiles at the range of up to 5 km without entering the dangerous area.
Ukraine is expected to unveil its upgraded T-84 tanks during celebration of the 26th anniversary of independence May 28, 2017Here: http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine-is-expected...
Ukraine is expected to unveil its upgraded T-84 main battle tanks (MBTs) during a 24 August parade as part of the 26th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence.
SE “Malyshev Plant”, part of Ukrainian defence concern UkrOboronProm, to upgrade six T-84 main battle tanks. This tank is a predecessor of the latest vehicles Oplot.
“T-84 is actually the same Oplot in its characteristics, at the same time, the cost of upgraded the T-84 tank is an order of magnitude lower than the production of the Oplot ” – said chief engineer at Kharkiv-based Malyshev Plant Oleksandr Sheiko.
The first T-84 prototype vehicle rolled out in 1994, and in the same year it was decided to build several more vehicles. They were subjected to extensive company and army trials. After successful completion of the extensive trials programme in the late 1990s the T-84 MBT entered service with the Ukrainian Army in 1999. On 24 August 2000, 10 T-84 MBTs took part in the parade dedicated to the 10th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence.
The main armament comprises a stabilized 125-mm KBA3 smoothbore gun fed by a carousel-type automatic loader and fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor (bore evacuator). The gun is stabilized in both elevation and traverse. The main gun has a quick-replacement barrel which can be changed under field conditions without the need to remove the gun from the tank.
The specific feature of the tank is that it is fitted with a guided missile system to enable the main gun to fire a laser guided missile and engage targets out to 5,000 m.
As of today, Malyshev Plant begins routine repair and modernization of the batch of tanks T-84 for Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The T-84 tank is a further development of the T-80UD tank by means of installing, among other things, multiple protection explosive reactive armor modules, these being supplemented by passive armor array, and a more advanced fire control system similar to that installed on the modern Ukrainian Oplot tanks.
Excalibur offers T-72 main battle tank upgrade at IDET 2017 May 31, 2017 Here: http://defence-blog.com/army/excalibur-offers-t-72-main-battle-tank-upgrade-at-idet-2017.html
Czech Company Excaliburhas developed an upgrade package for the Soviet-made T-72 main battle tank. The set of upgrades for the T-72 main battle tank (MBT), with the improved vehicle designated called the T-4 72 Scarab or T-72 Scarab.
The Czech Company Excalibur unveiled it’s improved T-72 Scarab main battle tank during the International Fair of Defence and Security Technology (IDET) in Brno.
According to armyrecognition.com, the T-72 Scarab is motorized with the V-84 engine developing 618 kW replacing the original engine V-46-6. It can run at a maximum road speed of 60 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 500 km.
The T-72 Scarab of the Czech Company Excalibur keeps the main armament of the standard Soviet-made T-72 main battle tank which consists of one 125 mm (2A46) smoothbore gun fitted with a light-alloy thermal sleeve and a bore evacuator. The turret is fitted with a carousel automatic loader mounted on the turret floor and also on the rear wall of the turret.
The ballistic protection of the T-72 was substantially increased while maintaining its outstanding mobility. For the T-72 Scarab, the front of the hull is fitted with ERA Explosive Reactive Armour, front and sides of the turret are equipped with passive armour and rear part of the turret is protected with wire cage armour.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Germans smoked them.
