[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

OminousSpudd wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:
Hlopotov (Gur Khan) has suggested the same on Otvaga. That it weighs no more than 50t, about the same as the T-90MS....he's also hinted that a new turret is in the works for the T-72/T-90 which has already been shown to the Algerians apparently.

Possibly T-72B4? A new turret for the T-72 sounds like a very sensible idea.
As for the the T-90 I'd be very suprised to see them develope yet another turret, especially when the T-90MS/AM essentially fulfills every requirement for the next few decades.

The turret will be an iteration of the Burlak with bells and whistles from the MS/T-14.

Notice the Burlak...second turret.

The problem i see here is that GLATGM are slower than MANPAD purposed missiles and the costs for GLATGM is not lower than what a much more capable MANPAD costs.

What makes you think GLATGMs are slower?

Time of flight to 5km for Svir is 17.6 seconds... so 17.6 divided by 5 equals 1km per 3.5 seconds... or pretty much approximately supersonic most of the way.

You are a smart guy... I don't need to explain how an M16 bullet can leave the muzzle of a rifle at 3 times the speed of sound and be subsonic at 600m range because after it leaves the muzzle it starts to slow down rapidly... it would be the same for this unpowered missile.

the point is that a MANPAD wont get to the target that much quicker and most importantly most MANPADs look at the target do flares become a problem... SVIR looks back at the tank it was launched from...

The Commander would need to communicate with the gunner to point him for that target so that the gunner could aim his cannon to shoot the GLATGM towards the target while the Commander still has to Laser Beam that target.

On the T-90M the commander can aim and fire the gun himself... on the armata the driver can probably do it too.

Why create a separate launcher for a new type of ammo and a new weapon when vehicles supporting your unit will be close behind with them anyway?

And you will have GLATGMs anyway.

IMO such vertical launchers even for 2nd Gen MANPADS would greatly enhance survivability of high value tanks like Armata especially since the West is pushing for war and the helicopter fleets tend to grow.

Dedicated air defence vehicles will be rather more effective and efficient... for the very occasional situation where a tank might have to fight with a helo there are missiles that already exist and likely the new missiles will be even more effective.

If the Kornet-EM can kill targets at 10km a GLATGM should be able to do even better... which is 5km more reach than any MANPAD Russia deploys.

No. it is not.
It is subsonic and can hit target at >8km range.
The guy who wrote this report was drunk...

Kornet-E flys at 300m/s, as does the anti tank model of the Kornet-EM, the HE armed Kornet-EM is supersonic with a flight speed of 320m/s.

The E model can hit targets at 5.5km, the anti armour EM at 8.5km and the HE EM at 10km.

1.) The menagerie of polygon shapes are indication of a low-observable stealthy turret, designed to counter the formidable artillery radar/MLRS combination.

2.) The turret bustle looks independent and detachable. Likely used to add ammo quickly, and when struck it will likely be ejected (with the help of charges) some ten meters behind the T-14 as one of the many safety pre-cautions.

3.) The current turret design isn't a 'End-all-be-all', there's likely several different configurations such a ERA-heavy 'clam-shell' turret.

...This is just a sample of my thoughts, I'll add significantly more to these points later...

Agree... and that hole in the side is intriguing... I very much doubt it is for empty shell cases... it is a 90 degree angle to the ammo feed, which in itself is awkward.

The best I hope for is it is the location for a weapon mount that could be a self contained gatling (ie weapon and ammo bin) in either 12.7 x 108mm or 14.5 x 114mm or 23 x 115mm calibre... or perhaps a 30mm or 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher...


BTW that is the one... thanks Cyberspec...

Possibly T-72B4? A new turret for the T-72 sounds like a very sensible idea.
As for the the T-90 I'd be very suprised to see them develope yet another turret, especially when the T-90MS/AM essentially fulfills every requirement for the next few decades.

Working with new materials and new systems I am sure they will have learned a few new tricks they could apply to the old dogs...

k@llashniKoff wrote:What I really like about Armata - it's light weight. Due to unmanned turret, which doesn't have to be heavy armoured, Armata's weight is definitely under 50 t. I was really worried that UVZ will produce some 60-70 t monster. And with the new engine and <50 t weight the dynamic of the vehicle is great. It's light, fast and manoeuvrable.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:I am excited to see if it gets even lighter in the future as the APS technology matures and becomes more and more prolific. Right now, rumor has it that it is floating around the 55 t range. Which is still heavier the UVZ's past vehicles, but not that heavy when put into perspective with last generation Western tanks like the M1 Abrams, the 70 t pig.

Cyberspec wrote:Hlopotov (Gur Khan) has suggested the same on Otvaga. That it weighs no more than 50t, about the same as the T-90MS....he's also hinted that a new turret is in the works for the T-72/T-90 which has already been shown to the Algerians apparently.

Guys, we have calculated this in a series of old posts. The last one of the series is quoted in the following.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Using this photo, the tack width seems to be 550 mm; however, in this day and age, there are many distorted photos, thanks to change in aspect ratios that can often happen.




Due to fundamental armor vehicle design requirements, I think, a track-width of 580 mm (that for T-72, T-80, or T-90) is an upper bound for a good tank design. That is the reason ob''ekt 279 had 4 tracks; having only 2 tracks wouldn't have worked for its weight without thinning the armor.

T-72 started life with a ground pressure of 0.85 kgs/cm^2; 0.8 kgs/cm^2 may be too good, in this day and age, for a tank.

Hence, for a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.85 kgs/cm^2, the total weight would be 49 t.

Viktor wrote:It would be interesting to see a unified work of both T-90A/M/MS and T-14 simultaneously against the enemy.

Like T-34 and IS-3 or KV-1 at steaming ahead and sharing data. Heavy tanks and medium tanks.

They will fight in separate formations, but may end up on the same battlefield. In WW2 they tried to have formations with T-34 and KV´s togheter, it didnt work because the T-34´s mobility and speed was much better so they became separated.

GarryB wrote:

The problem i see here is that GLATGM are slower than MANPAD purposed missiles and the costs for GLATGM is not lower than what a much more capable MANPAD costs.

What makes you think GLATGMs are slower?

Time of flight to 5km for Svir is 17.6 seconds... so 17.6 divided by 5 equals 1km per 3.5 seconds... or pretty much approximately supersonic most of the way.

You are a smart guy... I don't need to explain how an M16 bullet can leave the muzzle of a rifle at 3 times the speed of sound and be subsonic at 600m range because after it leaves the muzzle it starts to slow down rapidly... it would be the same for this unpowered missile.

the point is that a MANPAD wont get to the target that much quicker and most importantly most MANPADs look at the target do flares become a problem... SVIR looks back at the tank it was launched from...

The difference here in speed is Mach 2.5 vs Svir/Reflex of 400 m/s it has like you have mentioned a high initial velocity but only for around 1km just like Helicopter ATGM's while MANPADS tend to sustain above Mach 2 speed.

Regarding Flares, flares are quite ineffective against multispectral seekers of latest MANPADS the only effective solution would be DIRCM and then in that point yes a Laser Beam rider would certainly have upper hand.

GarryB wrote:

The Commander would need to communicate with the gunner to point him for that target so that the gunner could aim his cannon to shoot the GLATGM towards the target while the Commander still has to Laser Beam that target.

On the T-90M the commander can aim and fire the gun himself... on the armata the driver can probably do it too.

Why create a separate launcher for a new type of ammo and a new weapon when vehicles supporting your unit will be close behind with them anyway?

And you will have GLATGMs anyway.

This is just a concept idea, nothing i expect to be fitted, but i wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later we will see similiar design. The skies are filled more and more with CAS aircrafts (helicopters) and with such aircrafts like YAK-130 which are relative cheap but still very capable countries could buy them in enough numbers for their conflicts and such fairly simple but effective upgrade like Shilka M4 with Igla's extends the effectiveness of Shilkas and such ideas of using MANPADS on tanks have been thrown around before.

A vertical launcher is designed for the purpose because it is 360° instant launchable without the need for anyone to aim it. Since the armata and T-90Ms have already been proven to have Autotrack and Lockon capability it would only take the commander to check his screen of the locked on target and to press a button for launch, no aiming for himself, no time wasted and the tank can then safely deploy smoke screen. The point is you can't use Laser Beam riding missiles when you have an automated SHTORA that deploys aerosol around your tank while there is an Attack Helicopter knowing exactly where you are and just waiting for your smoke screen to disperse which takes around 30 seconds or less and then you are a sitting duck, he will try again to launch a missile and your tank will again deploy an aerosol and block for you and for him designation of target, but he can wait he sees you from above, no chance for the commander to Target and designate Helicopter without leaving aerosola way and waiting for helicopter to ATGM you. Yes the tank has APS but no APS works 100% effective and ATGM's fired from above usually have the advantage to have the angle off attack to your tanks armor which reduces the effectiveness of the sloping of armor.

GarryB wrote:

IMO such vertical launchers even for 2nd Gen MANPADS would greatly enhance survivability of high value tanks like Armata especially since the West is pushing for war and the helicopter fleets tend to grow.

Dedicated air defence vehicles will be rather more effective and efficient... for the very occasional situation where a tank might have to fight with a helo there are missiles that already exist and likely the new missiles will be even more effective.

If the Kornet-EM can kill targets at 10km a GLATGM should be able to do even better... which is 5km more reach than any MANPAD Russia deploys.

Yes, but such missiles are rather hard to install in vertical alunchers inside Armata T-14. In colleration to what most believe (no i don't count you to them) the battlefields do not look that simple like Iraqi deserts where under optimal weather you could spot a tank with bare eyes. Most fields in european theatre have lot of obstacles, trees, tranches, bushes villages towns simply said to much visual distraction to optical targeting, to find your tank you will end up being far closer to your enemy than the maximal effective range of your helicopters ATGM's, usually and the average heliborne ATGM engagement range is around 3-4km, less within 6km, but well within any MANPAD.

So in reality such MANPADS would have their use. Either spend 60.000 Euro on a MANPAD or waste 8 mln euro for a tank getting destroyed due the inbalance of tank vs helicopter and their respective capabilities against each other.

GarryB wrote:
Agree... and that hole in the side is intriguing... I very much doubt it is for empty shell cases... it is a 90 degree angle to the ammo feed, which in itself is awkward.

The best I hope for is it is the location for a weapon mount that could be a self contained gatling (ie weapon and ammo bin) in either 12.5 x 108mm or 14.5 x 114mm or 23 x 115mm calibre... or perhaps a 30mm or 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher...


BTW that is the one... thanks Cyberspec...

The hole at the side is for rearming the autoloader, one reaches rounds through that hatch and another places them into the autoloader to load the carousel. The door for case buttoms for ejection is at the rear side right beneath turret bustle. The side whole will probably be sealed with adaptive block of armor, because no one will be that genius to leave a gap of the 60° forward arc open.

I think that turret we will see only for BMPT version with 57mm autocannon and 23mm Gatling and 2A42 or 30/40/57mm Grenade Launcher.
There is little to no space with the autoloader and the 2A82 gun to mount a 57mm GL or 23mm Gatling nor a 2A42 cannon with enough ammunition storage.

GarryB wrote:

Possibly T-72B4? A new turret for the T-72 sounds like a very sensible idea.
As for the the T-90 I'd be very suprised to see them develope yet another turret, especially when the T-90MS/AM essentially fulfills every requirement for the next few decades.

Working with new materials and new systems I am sure they will have learned a few new tricks they could apply to the old dogs...  

I do hope for more upgrades similiar to Obj 640/Burlak/-90MS turret to older vehicles.

Werewolf wrote:
Yes, but such missiles are rather hard to install in vertical alunchers inside Armata T-14. In colleration to what most believe (no i don't count you to them) the battlefields do not look that simple like Iraqi deserts where under optimal weather you could spot a tank with bare eyes. Most fields in european theatre have lot of obstacles, trees, tranches, bushes villages towns simply said to much visual distraction to optical targeting, to find your tank you will end up being far closer to your enemy than the maximal effective range of your helicopters ATGM's, usually and the average heliborne ATGM engagement range is around 3-4km, less within 6km, but well within any MANPAD.

So in reality such MANPADS would have their use. Either spend 60.000 Euro on a MANPAD or waste 8 mln euro for a tank getting destroyed due the inbalance of tank vs helicopter and their respective capabilities against each other.

but cover and concealment also works (arguably better) in favor of the T-14. btw why are you assuming a target detected scenario from the get go for the attack helo? the t-14 has built-in radar signature mitigation and prolly for ir too.
this significantly decreases the detection range of the attack helo against it, all the while the T-14 can see the attack helo just fine. afterall not that many birds fly a couple hundred km/h spinning thousands of rpm rotor blades and breathing out jet exhaust.
so unless caught out in the open, the T-14 has the drop on an attack helo for majority of conditions.
and anything closer like 2km close and the helo gets a sabot - further and its GLATGMs, the former will not even trigger any MAWS, while the latter will ignore any DIRCM.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Yes, but such missiles are rather hard to install in vertical alunchers inside Armata T-14. In colleration to what most believe (no i don't count you to them) the battlefields do not look that simple like Iraqi deserts where under optimal weather you could spot a tank with bare eyes. Most fields in european theatre have lot of obstacles, trees, tranches, bushes villages towns simply said to much visual distraction to optical targeting, to find your tank you will end up being far closer to your enemy than the maximal effective range of your helicopters ATGM's, usually and the average heliborne ATGM engagement range is around 3-4km, less within 6km, but well within any MANPAD.

So in reality such MANPADS would have their use. Either spend 60.000 Euro on a MANPAD or waste 8 mln euro for a tank getting destroyed due the inbalance of tank vs helicopter and their respective capabilities against each other.

but cover and concealment also works (arguably better) in favor of the T-14. btw why are you assuming a shootout scenario from the get go for the attack helo? the t-14 has built-in radar signature mitigation and prolly similar for ir too.
this significantly decreases the detection range of the attack helo against it, all the while the T-14 can see the attack helo just fine. afterall not that many birds fly a couple hundred km/h spinning thousands of rpm rotor blades and breathing out jet exhaust.
so unless caught out in the open, the T-14 has the drop on an attack helo for majority of conditions.
and anything closer like 2km close and the helo gets a sabot - further and its GLATGMs.

Ok lets get back to some reality how scenarios would look in the common without "IF's".

Fact is such things like Nakidka exists but barely anyone has ever seen it nor have been this fairly simple technology ever deployed, it would be easy upgrade for Donbass tanks hiding from ukropy tanks and ATGM's but they also have them barely in any numbers, but nothing of this has shown up.

In the most common scenario we will see Armatas in their basic configuration, no nakidkas and maybe this "low" grade of IR and Radar reduction housing of the turret. Well it decreases the range of detection good for the tank. The other point is, Tanks do not have IRST that are cosntantly watching out for the sky. The commanders Thermal Image is looking on the ground, the commander will get information of Attack Helicopters presence when he designates or uses its laser range finder against the tank and the LWR of shtora will detect it and slew Commanders sight towards it at this point who is in the advantage? A helicopter with at least several ATGM's which he can also launch in packs fairly repidly with 4 ATGMS within a minute or 8 or the Tank that tries to hit beneath smoke screen with no genuine option of using its own GLATGM against the helicopter without breaking guidance due aerosol or because the guidance is broke due the APS working against ATGM or maybe APS fails against two rapidly fired ATGM's of the helicopter.

The chances that the tank spots the helicopter first is unlikely and even if he does he is still not in the advantage over an Attack Helicopter. A tank is still a tank but MANPAD would give him enhanced capabilities to survive an Attack Helicopter or CAS plane.

The chances for a tank hitting a flying (non hovering) helicopter with a sabot is slim and the SABOT is the least effective weapon a tank could use against a helicopter. Even 12.7mm fire is more effective. When this 5cm wide Sabot is not killing crew or non redundant vital parts of the helicopter like rotor, tail rotor or  gearbox, the helicopter will keep on flying with minor damage. If it had to fire from 2km anything against a helicopter it would be Airburst programmed HE-Frag munition and everything else is unlikely to hit such a target.

Armata will share information between all units.. so if one see an Apache ,all others will see it
too and get a lock on it.. a Tank can hide much better from buildings ,while an apache cannot.
a simple kornet -D armed jeep with 10km range will win against a slow flying apache..
Armata should get a lock on it about the same distance.. the apache cannot fight until 8km.
of its hellfire missiles. But if armata defenses are as good ,as they advertise it..it will intercept a hellfire but the helicopter will have no active defense to intercept anything.

So in a duel between armata and Ah-64 ,the armata wins.. if the apache jump first ,and caught by surprise the armata ,it could have a chance to score a hit first.. Ideally in such cases of heavily defended airspace you will need fast flying drones or planes to go first.. and get rid of the tanks first.

Vann7 wrote:

Armata will share information between all units.. so if one see an Apache ,all others will see it
too and get a lock on it.. a Tank can hide much better from buildings ,while an apache cannot.
a simple kornet -D armed jeep with 10km range will win against a slow flying apache..
Armata should get a lock on it about the same distance.. the apache cannot fight until 8km.
of its hellfire missiles.  But if armata defenses are as good ,as they advertise it..it will intercept a hellfire but the helicopter will have no active defense to intercept anything.

So in a duel  between armata and Ah-64 ,the armata wins.. if the apache jump first ,and caught by surprise the armata ,it could have a chance to score a hit first.. Ideally in such cases of heavily defended airspace you will need fast flying drones or planes to go first.. and get rid of the tanks first.

Datalink works for both here, Apaches would share the data, and T-14 as well. All will depend on given tactical situation. Furthermore, as it stands even a durka durka with a PKM can manage to cripple any given AH-64 on the right premises. Even wound the WOP.

Werewolf wrote:
Ok lets get back to some reality how scenarios would look in the common without "IF's".

Fact is such things like Nakidka exists but barely anyone has ever seen it nor have been this fairly simple technology ever deployed, it would be easy upgrade for Donbass tanks hiding from ukropy tanks and ATGM's but they also have them barely in any numbers, but nothing of this has shown up.

and how many attack helos of the opposition have DIRCM, or even MAWS? not that many too.

Werewolf wrote:
In the most common scenario we will see Armatas in their basic configuration, no nakidkas and maybe this "low" grade of IR and Radar reduction housing of the turret. Well it decreases the range of detection good for the tank. The other point is, Tanks do not have IRST that are cosntantly watching out for the sky. The commanders Thermal Image is looking on the ground, the commander will get information of Attack Helicopters presence when he designates or uses its laser range finder against the tank and the LWR of shtora will detect it and slew Commanders sight towards it at this point who is in the advantage? A helicopter with at least several ATGM's which he can also launch in packs fairly repidly with 4 ATGMS within a minute or 8 or the Tank that tries to hit beneath smoke screen with no genuine option of using its own GLATGM against the helicopter without breaking guidance due aerosol or because the guidance is broke due the APS working against ATGM or maybe APS fails against two rapidly fired ATGM's of the helicopter.

i forgot to mention that since it has mmw radar of its own(par of afghanit APS), the T-14 can work out wherever someone is pinging. plus you can always set the panoramic thermal to rotate - the system is sufficiently advanced to recognize targets and track them on its own.

and the low grade radar reduction housing could be just as easily replaced with a full-on radar stealth turret housing, plus some ram panels to cover the hull. an attack helo has no way of hiding its humongous heat sig from increasingly sophisticated thermals.

oh, and i almost forgot - the T-14 can actually take hits. it can play chicken with the helo and not break GLATGM guidance lock until it connects. it has 10 hardkill interceptors waiting to least one salvo of your atgms.

Werewolf wrote:
The chances that the tank spots the helicopter first is unlikely and even if he does he is still not in the advantage over an Attack Helicopter. A tank is still a tank but MANPAD would give him enhanced capabilities to survive an Attack Helicopter or CAS plane.

Werewolf wrote:
The chances for a tank hitting a flying (non hovering) helicopter with a sabot is slim and the SABOT is the least effective weapon a tank could use against a helicopter. Even 12.7mm fire is more effective. When this 5cm wide Sabot is not killing crew or non redundant vital parts of the helicopter like rotor, tail rotor or  gearbox, the helicopter will keep on flying with minor damage. If it had to fire from 2km anything against a helicopter it would be Airburst programmed HE-Frag munition and everything else is unlikely to hit such a target.

true, but its probably the first round to be used. SOP ive read is a sabot round ready to fire at a moment's notice- with a ROF of 12 rpm a follow up shot with more appropriate ammo wont be long in waiting.

KoTeMoRe wrote:So in a duel  between armata and Ah-64 ,the armata wins.. if the apache jump first ,and caught by surprise the armata ,it could have a chance to score a hit first.. Ideally in such cases of heavily defended airspace you will need fast flying drones or planes to go first.. and get rid of the tanks first

Datalink works for both here, Apaches would share the data, and T-14 as well. All will depend on given tactical situation. Furthermore, as it stands even a durka durka with a PKM can manage to cripple any given AH-64 on the right premises. Even wound the WOP.

Well, helicopters would have extremly difficult to operate on a modern battlefield with AA assets. On tests in sweden CV90 won every time.
And in yougoslavia war Nato didnt dare sending in apaches, they only dared bomb from very high altitude, and thats against 2nd or 3rd rate AA. With Russia its 1st rate, Buk, Pantsir and S-400.

In Ukraine the fascists stopped attacking with Helis after militias brought down a number. And thats low Tech AA.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:
Hlopotov (Gur Khan) has suggested the same on Otvaga. That it weighs no more than 50t, about the same as the T-90MS....he's also hinted that a new turret is in the works for the T-72/T-90 which has already been shown to the Algerians apparently.

Possibly T-72B4? A new turret for the T-72 sounds like a very sensible idea.
As for the the T-90 I'd be very suprised to see them develope yet another turret, especially when the T-90MS/AM essentially fulfills every requirement for the next few decades.

T-72B3 is a cheap upgrade, and I wouldn't be surprised if the T-72B4 was a more expensive yet rather more capable upgrade. What if it turns out looking a lot like the T-90MS upgrade lol?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:
Hlopotov (Gur Khan) has suggested the same on Otvaga. That it weighs no more than 50t, about the same as the T-90MS....he's also hinted that a new turret is in the works for the T-72/T-90 which has already been shown to the Algerians apparently.

Possibly T-72B4? A new turret for the T-72 sounds like a very sensible idea.
As for the the T-90 I'd be very suprised to see them develope yet another turret, especially when the T-90MS/AM essentially fulfills every requirement for the next few decades.

T-72B3 is a cheap upgrade, and I wouldn't be surprised if the T-72B4 was a more expensive yet rather more capable upgrade. What if it turns out looking a lot like the T-90MS upgrade lol?

The T-72 has nearly reached the limit of upgrades, B3 will be enough for now. Look at the T-64, "Bulat", high cost upgrade that dont make any big difference. Its outclassed in Donetsk and dont stand up to the standards of a modern tank.
T-72 has the configuration it has and is a good tank, but cant compare with T-14, dont make it ridiculas and throw away funds. Like T-55AM2...

runaway wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:So in a duel  between armata and Ah-64 ,the armata wins.. if the apache jump first ,and caught by surprise the armata ,it could have a chance to score a hit first.. Ideally in such cases of heavily defended airspace you will need fast flying drones or planes to go first.. and get rid of the tanks first

Datalink works for both here, Apaches would share the data, and T-14 as well. All will depend on given tactical situation. Furthermore, as it stands even a durka durka with a PKM can manage to cripple any given AH-64 on the right premises. Even wound the WOP.

Well, helicopters would have extremly difficult to operate on a modern battlefield with AA assets. On tests in sweden CV90 won every time.
And in yougoslavia war Nato didnt dare sending in apaches, they only dared bomb from very high altitude, and thats against 2nd or 3rd rate AA. With Russia  its 1st rate, Buk, Pantsir and S-400.

In Ukraine the fascists stopped attacking with Helis after militias brought down a number. And thats low Tech AA.

Versus same low tech canibalized Ukrop choppers.

The issue stands on how the datalink will be exploited. The T-14 role is to beyond the former tasks, but it isn't going to become the poor man's shilka. What I can accept however is that it will serve the radar purpose. With the T-14 tracking the chopper and relaying with MANPAD team or AAA team on truck.

The Bulat is outdated yes, but also very poorly employed.

collegeboy16 wrote:

and how many attack helos of the opposition have DIRCM, or even MAWS? not that many too.

Not many actually barely any of Attack Helicopters, but that will only grow since this is the only protective solution to helicopters right now.

collegeboy16 wrote:
i forgot to mention that since it has mmw radar of its own(par of afghanit APS), the T-14 can work out wherever someone is pinging. plus you can always set the panoramic thermal to rotate - the system is sufficiently advanced to recognize targets and track them on its own.

and the low grade radar reduction housing could be just as easily replaced with a full-on radar stealth turret housing, plus some ram panels to cover the hull. an attack helo has no way of hiding its humongous heat sig from increasingly sophisticated thermals.

oh, and i almost forgot - the T-14 can actually take hits. it can play chicken with the helo and not break GLATGM guidance lock until it connects. it has 10 hardkill interceptors waiting to least one salvo of your atgms.

You will never achieve "full stealth turret" it is made of metal and there is little to no use making a tank fully stealth, radars already have disatvantage against ground targets due the clutter created from obstacles interfering with what radars can see, it just needs to try to blend it, however stealth is always a compromise of other attributes and making anything "fully stealth" is the way of f**king up a design.

The hard kill system for top attack weapons, we do not know how many it will have and relying soley on Active Protection System is a very risky game.

Russians never relied on one Layer of defence for their tanks, never! And i doubt they will rely on just one now, but we will see that in 2 years.

Well, helicopters would have extremly difficult to operate on a modern battlefield with AA assets. On tests in sweden CV90 won every time.
And in yougoslavia war Nato didnt dare sending in apaches, they only dared bomb from very high altitude, and thats against 2nd or 3rd rate AA. With Russia its 1st rate, Buk, Pantsir and S-400.

In Ukraine the fascists stopped attacking with Helis after militias brought down a number. And thats low Tech AA.

What made up simulations were that where the CV90 has won against Attack Helicopters?

Any vehicle without dedicated Anti Aircraft role is in a huge disadvantage against CAS aircrafts, especially when it has no armor nor any weaponary such as CV-9040.

NATO did dare sending Apaches into Serbia, 7 were destroyed after that they recalled that tactics. There are still parts of Apache equipment in Belgrade Museum along with pictures of destroyed equipment and scrap metal left of crash sides.

Werewolf wrote:
What made up simulations were that where the CV90 has won against Attack Helicopters?

Any vehicle without dedicated Anti Aircraft role is in a huge disadvantage against CAS aircrafts, especially when it has no armor nor any weaponary such as CV-9040.

NATO did dare sending Apaches into Serbia, 7 were destroyed after that they recalled that tactics. There are still parts of Apache equipment in Belgrade Museum along with pictures of destroyed equipment and scrap metal left of crash sides.

The combat was between CV9040 AA version against Bo 105P/PAH-1A1, Three vs Three. Three times, and every time the helis were brought down Before they could find and engage CV9040.

No armour nor any weaponry??

9040: Anti-Air Vehicle, fitted with PS-95 radar from Thomson CSF Harfang (now Thales Group) and a high elevation 40 mm autocannon capable of using programmable ammunition. Also connected to the national air defence net LuLIS. Three have been upgraded to C-standard.[18] There is also a demonstrator designated Lvkv 90-TD fitted with infrared video targeting and fully stabilized gun for firing on the move.

The basic armour of the CV9040 provides all-round protection against 14.5 mm armour-piercing rounds. Armour protection over the frontal arc is classified, but all models from CV9040B and later are said to be protected against 30 mm APFSDS. Some variants, including the CV9030N, can be fitted with MEXAS, a ceramic appliqué armor which provides all-round[citation needed] protection against 30 mm APFSDS.





-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7344