[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Werewolf wrote:
They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

I am not aware of such systems installed on any tanks, do you have specific information?

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Which one? Optronic database? There is no tank that could do that. There are systems in study for the AMX-56 with shape-factor IFF. They are trying to solve one issue with Optronic IFF, density. In most cases the optical/IR IFF will be difficult over 1K since the tank will show a shape, but not the actual density. Thales BMS PIDed 8/10 cardboards as real targets...it went to 9/10 with cars dressed up as tanks.

Cyberspec wrote:Regarding the Javelin, he talks about angles of approach and the shape of the turret but my Russian is poor and I can't really understand it properly (translators don't help). Perhaps some Russian member can translate properly.

On the side armour issue, I think he's talking about the area covered by dynamic protection...he also says enemy tanks would have a hard time penetrating the side armour in many scenarios....he believes the Armata armour protection will be superior to anything currently in service

Keep in mind these figures are estimates based on available info and visual observation, not official figures

Werewolf wrote:They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

mutantsushi wrote:

Werewolf wrote:They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

I am not aware of such systems installed on any tanks, do you have specific information?

imma parrot what GarryB has been saying about the lasers for these beam riders being orders of magnitude weaker than those for the laser rangefinder - afterall its one way transmitting, no need to reflect back as is the case with laser rangefinders.

no, nothing, just inferred it from the T-90MS CGI video i have saved in my machine. even if there is no mode on the fcs for it (i think the standard practice against targets with suspected LWR equipment would be to lase nearby objects, which is not applicable to flying targets for obviuos reasons unless they are hovering), one could just adhoc a target height pixel counter and target height database comparator. actually impossibru, in order to autotrack the target must be lased first for a couple secs, then there is sudden abrupt movement changes and boom you have to restart an autotrack, so sorry my bad .

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Which one? Optronic database? There is no tank that could do that. There are systems in study for the AMX-56 with shape-factor IFF. They are trying to solve one issue with Optronic IFF, density. In most cases the optical/IR IFF will be difficult over 1K since the tank will show a shape, but not the actual density. Thales BMS PIDed 8/10 cardboards as real targets...it went to 9/10 with cars dressed up as tanks.

oh, is that so? bummer. maybe they weren't using the latest thermals coupled with image post processing- but then again more likely they did since they own the tech. in that case the only fallback would be good old height comparing, but good luck without an autotrack.

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

INCREASE FIRE AND EXPLOSION Wept

Provided by:

the use of flammable-explosion safe fuel tanks;
the use of flame resistent fuel tanks with a foam filler to suffocate flames of type (SMOG and IAD) for the protection of the fire nodes.

mutantsushi wrote:

Werewolf wrote:They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

Not true. To autotrack a target you don't need to know its range... it is a video processing feature that would work on the moon or the sun if you want... you don't need to know the range to either to track their movements.

Equally you don't need to know the range to the target... you can look at where the target is and turn 45 degrees and lase something on the ground a similar distance away to get a rough estimate... if it is 6km away then you know your gun launched missile will reach as it can hit targets at 8km so you turn your turret round and place the crosshair on the target and "lock it"... ie tell the autotracker to follow the target... load the round and fire... the guidance system normally raises the beam to a couple of metres above the target so your missile will fly a few metres high and wont fly into fences of trees etc... the ballistics computer has a rough idea of range and knows the flight performance of the missile... so knowing the target is about 6km away after x number of seconds where the missile will have flown 5km the guidance system will automatically drop the laser down to centre it on the target and the missile will sense the beam drop several metres and it will descend back into the centre of the beam and follow it to hit the target.

The missile will still be covering several hundred metres per second so the pilot wont see it until it is way too late... an end on GLATGM is 125mm across... if you can see that 200m away then you are a better man than I... and one second later it is punching through your cockpit windscreen... you will see that but you wont have time to do anything about it...

Dodging bullets is Hollywood BS.

During a real war if a pilot sees an SA-2 launch they might be able to start a manouver that the missile can't follow so you dodge the missile... but there is a difference between a telephone pole sized missile with an enormous smoke trail behind it and a missile the size of a football with no rocket motor and no smoke coming up from the ground with ground clutter to hide in.

   This probably belongs in ATGM thread at this point, but wouldn't LWRs only be effective against LRFs?
   A Laser Beam riding missile has the guidance laser shining up it's ass the whole trip, so should never need to trigger any LWR, right?

Yes... having the LWR so sensitive that they are set off by beam riding lasers will simply result in hundreds or thousands of false alarms... which will likely lead to the being turned off.

GarryB wrote:
Not true. To autotrack a target you don't need to know its range... it is a video processing feature that would work on the moon or the sun if you want... you don't need to know the range to either to track their movements.

Regular wrote:Too much Mad Max? Check diesel properties and conditions it needs to explode But then again almost empty diesel tanks can explode because of diesel gas. But that kind of explosion wouldn't rip Your ears off.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Dima wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Murican fanbouys review T-14 Armata - forums.kindergarten.com  

Just in case ex-mp.net guys felt mp.net was just one insane shithole, you gotta see these frogs living in their own shit. Except for a few unbiased and matured posters who put across things objectively, rest are a bunch of simply brainless murican fanbouys & biased educated fools for whom there is only murican way of life.
I would like to see that d_berwal guy in this forum. He is the only person in that forum with real knowledge on the subject. I dont know how Austin is surviving on that forum with a shitload of biased and dumb moderators and crew for whom anything Russian is untouchable.

Werewolf wrote:This is almost conditioning or Pawlow reflex, whenever i read "Bharat Rakshak" i have to eye roll, that is truelly an even more ridiculous forum than f-16 or mp net together.

GarryB wrote:Javelin uses a single HEAT warhead with 750mm penetration... a decent ERA could halve that and hitting at a bad angle could further reduce it to levels that could be survivable...

THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE WOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE BUT MUST INTERFACE WITH THE JAVELIN BLOCK O AND BLOCK I COMMAND LAUNCH UNITS (CLUS). JAVELIN MISSILE AND CLU (BLOCK O AND BLOCK I) INTERFACE CONTROL DRAWINGS AND PE! RFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST THROUGH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY CONTACTING KIM FLOYD (KIM.FLOYD@US.ARMY.MIL). THESE INTERFACE CONTROL DRAWINGS AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESPONDING TO THIS RFI. ANY OTHER USE IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

FOLLOWING ARE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE AS AN UPGRADE TO CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE SYSTEM: PORTABILITY-CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL BE A MAN-PPRTABLE SYSTEM. THE BLOCK O AND BLOCK I CLU WEIGH APPROXIMATELY 15 POUNDS. THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II ROUND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 POUNDS, WITH A DESIRED WEIGHT OF 20 POUNDS OR LESS. IMPROVED COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS (LETHALITY). CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL ACHIEVE A MOBILITY OR FIREPOWER KILL AGAINST T-90 PIP 1 TANK CAST TURRET WITH AND WITHOUT APPLIQUE ARMOR AND ALSO PROVIDE INCAPACITATING OR LETHAL EFFECTS AGAINST LIGHT/SOFT VEHICLES, PERSONNEL IN OPEN AREAS, PERSONNEL WITHIN STRUCTURES OR STANDARD EARTH AND TIMBER BUNKERS.[/b] LETHALITY. CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE WILL INCREASE PROBABILITY OF HIT (PH) ON SMALL TARGETS, SUCH AS NATO BUNKER APERTURES BEYOND 1200M, WHEN COMPARED TO CURRENT FIRE AND FORGET ENGAGEMENTS.

Werewolf wrote:

Dima wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Murican fanbouys review T-14 Armata - forums.kindergarten.com  

Just in case ex-mp.net guys felt mp.net was just one insane shithole, you gotta see these frogs living in their own shit. Except for a few unbiased and matured posters who put across things objectively, rest are a bunch of simply brainless murican fanbouys & biased educated fools for whom there is only murican way of life.
I would like to see that d_berwal guy in this forum. He is the only person in that forum with real knowledge on the subject. I dont know how Austin is surviving on that forum with a shitload of biased and dumb moderators and crew for whom anything Russian is untouchable.

This is almost conditioning or Pawlow reflex, whenever i read "Bharat Rakshak" i have to eye roll, that is truelly an even more ridiculous forum than f-16 or mp net together.

Dima wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Austin wrote:I dont get what you are trying to say with the picture , Can you be specific ?

If HE hit that fuel tank on armata wont it explode ?

What will explode? The fuel tank or the T-14? Given that tank is most probably diesel it will burn slowly and not explode.

Have a look at t-90's fuel line. It is even more exposed.

Murican fanbouys review T-14 Armata - forums.kindergarten.com  

Just in case ex-mp.net guys felt mp.net was just one insane shithole, you gotta see these frogs living in their own shit. Except for a few unbiased and matured posters who put across things objectively, rest are a bunch of simply brainless murican fanbouys & biased educated fools for whom there is only murican way of life.
I would like to see that d_berwal guy in this forum. He is the only person in that forum with real knowledge on the subject. I dont know how Austin is surviving on that forum with a shitload of biased and dumb moderators and crew for whom anything Russian is untouchable.

magnumcromagnon wrote:On this edition of MTV Cribs: Armata APC/IFV