History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3739
Location: CIVLANT
Not being a "sojer" I have only the most rudimentary knowledge of tanks, say what I "Learn" from watching R. Lee Ermy's TV Show. :roll: I have no idea if the "Old Gunny" gets things right but I sure do find him entertaining and many times close to p!ss my pants hilarious. JarHeads childlike ways have always amused me. We have a few in a family (no family is perfect) that is overwhelming Navy and I must admit they take a lot of "Sh!t" with good grace and humor.

Afghanit (Russian: Афганит) active protection system (APS),intriguing me most. Such a system was news to me. R. Lee never mentioned one for the M1:lol: :lol:

I'd appreciate the reading the wisdom of those here who actually know something about modern tank defensive systems.

This is from From Wikipedia, so I don't place much credence in it.


Protection
The T-14's crew of three is protected by an internal armored capsule with more than 900 mm RHA equivalent, increasing their chance of survival in case of a catastrophic kill. Both the chassis and the turret are equipped with the Malachit dual-explosive reactive armour (ERA) system on the front, sides and the top, the turret's shape is designed to reduce its radio and thermal signature.[26] The tank uses an integrated, computerized control system which monitors the state and functions of all tank modules; in battle, the software can analyze threats and then either suggest or automatically take actions to eliminate them, while without the external threat it can detect and rectify crew errors. Serial production of the Armata Platform's ceramic armor components began in mid-2015.

The tank features the Afghanit (Russian: Афганит) active protection system (APS),[51] which includes a millimeter-wave radar to detect, track, and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions, both kinetic energy penetrators and tandem-charges.[2][52] Currently, the maximum speed of the interceptable target is 1,700 m/s (Mach 5.0), with projected future increases of up to 3,000 m/s (Mach 8.8).[18] According to news sources, it protects the tank from all sides,[26] however it is not geared towards shooting upwards to defend against top-attack munitions.

Defense Update released an analysis of the tank in May 2015, speculating that Afghanit's main sensors are the four panels mounted on the turret's sides, which are probably AESA radar panes spread out for a 360° view, with possibly one more on top of the turret. In their opinion, the active part of the system consists of both a hard kill and soft kill element, the first of which actively destroys an incoming projectile (such as an unguided rocket or artillery shell), while the second confuses the guidance systems of ATGMs, causing them to lose target lock, they believe that it would be effective against 3rd and 4th generation ATGMs, including Hellfire, TOW, BILL, Javelin, Spike, Brimstone, and JAGM, as well as sensor-fused weapons (SFW).[55] Some Russian sources claim the hard-kill APS is effective even against depleted uranium-cored armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds traveling at 1.5–2 km/s (0.93–1.24 mi/s), but others are skeptical, saying the fragmentation charge would not do much to the dense penetrator; while it might be able to push it off course somewhat with a hit-to-kill approach, it likely won't do much to stop it.[56] Practical tests confirmed the destruction of the uranium subcalibration projectile (goal speed up to 2 km / s).

Afghanit hard-kill launchers are the long tubes mounted in groups of five between the turret's front sides and the chassis.[26] These send out an electronically activated charge that fires an Explosively Formed Penetrator towards the target (in all directions),[58] the tank is also equipped with the NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex,[59] which consists of two steerable cartridges with 12 smaller charges each, and a turret-top VLS with two more similar cartridges,[60] corresponding to the vehicle's soft kill APS.[55] Additionally, using the AESA radar and anti-aircraft machine gun it is possible to destroy incoming missiles and slow-flying shells (except kinetic energy penetrators).[61]

In July 2015, the deputy director of the Uralvagonzavod tank manufacturing company claimed the T-14 would be invisible to radar and infrared detection due to radar-absorbing paint and the placement of components with heat signatures deep within the hull. American and Russian armor experts have doubts about these unproven claims. A retired senior U.S. military officer said that sensitive modern thermal technology could detect things such as vehicle movement, a weapon firing, an exposed crewman, or the exhaust of an engine capable of moving a 50-ton tank regardless of heat-generating component placement. Analysts also pointed out that most stealth technology in Russia has been for aircraft to reduce their radar cross section from airborne or ground-based detection, while in a ground vehicle the approach would be to make it indistinguishable from ground clutter to optimize shielding from air-to-ground detection and the two techniques do not necessarily overlap.[62]

Sensors and communication

The T-14 is equipped with 26.5–40 GHz radar,[29] Active electronically scanned array radar,[29] which has a range of 100 km and is used mainly by the APS. Up to 40 airborne or 25 ground targets down to 0.3 m (12 in) in size[18] can be tracked simultaneously. The tracking system provides an automatic firing solution for the destruction of the target, which can then be transferred to either the APS or the main gun control computers,[2] the tank will be able to give target designation for artillery[18][63] and serve in air defence and reconnaissance roles.[15][18][52][64] The T-14 uses highly protected communication channels that connect a group of T-14s and the command post.

The commander and gunner have largely identical multispectral image sights, with visible electromagnetic spectrum and thermography channels and laser rangefinders.[2] The commander's sight is installed on the turret top and has a 360° field of view,[2][55][65] while the gunner's, situated in the turret's niche to the gun's left,[55][65] is slaved to it and is additionally equipped with a direct-vision periscopic channel and laser designator for the T-14's gun-launched, SACLOS anti-tank missiles.[2] The detection distance of tank-sized objects for both sights is 7,500 m (8000)[43] in daylight, through the TV/periscopic channel, and ≈3,500 m at night through the thermal channel. There is also a backup night-vision capable sight, with 2,000/1,000 m respective detection distances.[2] In addition to traditional vision periscopes, the driver has a forward looking infrared camera[65] and a number of zooming closed-circuit television cameras.[2] Video cameras are installed for all-round vision for the crew, since it lacks the normal vantage point of turret roof hatches, this 360-degree camera coverage is perhaps one of the T-14's most unusual features, made necessary because of extremely limited visibility without them. The crew, clustered in the front of the hull, would have poor situation awareness if the camera setup and video feeds were to fail.[38]

Although the T-14 is touted as an entirely Russian-made next-generation tank, some components may not be entirely domestically made. Cybersecurity analysts have stated that Russian industries have had difficulty producing critical components of night-vision systems which are standard on the tank, and have attempted to buy them from Western or Chinese suppliers in the past, this means components of the T-14 could have originated outside of Russia, and may be more difficult to obtain or produce due to sanctions against Russia for its involvement in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3739
Location: CIVLANT
A casual search of the net found this from the "Defense" Web Site.
Not sure if this is just another Raytheon Marketing campaign or has real substance.
As I said, my GoTo Military Tech Guy R. Lee Ermie has not done a program on this to my knowledge.
:roll:

Missile Defense For Tanks: Raytheon Quick Kill Vs. Israeli Trophy

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on March 09, 2016

WASHINGTON: After two decades of dithering and delay, the Army wants to give its armored vehicles the ability to shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles. What’s more, while the service will continue its own long-term, in-house research program, the Army is now willing to accept something “not invented here” so it can get an interim Active Protection System (APS) fielded in two years.

Which APS should the US buy? At one end of the spectrum of alternatives is the Israeli Trophy, from Rafael, a combat-tested but relatively crude shotgun-blast approach, which the Army first tested in 2010. At the other end is a miniaturized missile defense system, with all the complexity that implies, the Raytheon Quick Kill, originally developed for the Army’s cancelled Future Combat System.

Williamson LTG Army ASAALT 3404572342The service will test a range of alternatives on its vehicles this year, Lt. Gen. Michael Williamson told Congress last week. “We’re actually taking a dual path,” he said. “We have an established program called Modular Active Protection (System, but) that’s a five-year program, sir, which we started last year….In the interim, the second part of our strategy is to look at existing active protection systems both domestically produced and even those that our allies may have. We are now bringing those in this year (for tests) so we can have a capability a lot quicker than the five-year timeframe. Our goal is to have capability in two years.”

“There are in Israel deployed systems that are at least a good starting point for our discussion and your evaluation,” replied Rep. Mike Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services Air-Land Forces subcommittee. That’s a clear reference to the Trophy and its Israeli rival, Iron Fist.

“MAPS has been bumping along at the S&T (science and technology) level for a while,” a Hill staffer told me. “The new stuff is the direction to go and test ‘off the shelf’ systems on all three major platforms” — the M1 Abrams heavy tank, M2 Bradley tracked infantry fighting vehicle, and Stryker wheeled infantry carrier. “It’s long overdue.”

Why the rush? Russia. Admittedly, the revived Red Army and its separatist proxies are not the only threat. Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATMGs) are now standard issue for guerrilla forces like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which stalemated Israel in 2006, or Yemen’s Houthis, who destroyed some of the Saudis’ US-made M1 Abrams tanks, the famously impregnable mainstay of the US Army. But only a major nation-state can field massed missiles, and it’s only Eastern Europe where the US is upping its deployment of armored brigades.

Accelerating APS goes along with upgunning the eight-wheel-drive Stryker vehicle, like shield and sword, Lexington Institute analyst Dan Gouré told me. While the Army can’t afford wholesale modernization, he said, “we are rapidly increasing the lethality and survivability of a portion of our force that is most likely to be deployed to Europe and that can pose a credible conventional deterrent.”

Raytheon systems continually evolve to employ the latest technologies.

It was actually the Russians who pioneered active protection in the 1980s. Their Drozd (Thrush) system, when tested in Afghanistan, wiped out both incoming anti-tank rockets and, less ideally, any Russian infantry nearby when it went off. Today, updated Drozd systems have proved highly effective in Ukraine, says Potomac Foundation president Philip Karber, who’s just returned from visiting Ukrainian armored units. Drozd uses a miniaturized radar to detect incoming missiles and interceptor mini-rockets to blast them with pellets. Karber writes he has “interviewed several Ukrainian anti-tank ATGM gunners, who have complained bitterly about the ‘magical shield’ that sends their AT-5 guided missiles off in the sky or to the ground out of control just as the missile is on track to hit the tank.”

American officers “were shocked at how far Russians had come with close-in protection,” said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and one of the intellectual fathers of the Future Combat System. “Ukrainians who were using anti-tank guided missiles — which sadly they did not buy from the United States [because we refuse to provide ‘lethal aid’] — found them virtually unable to penetrate a T-90 without firing multiple shots.”

The Israeli Trophy is similar to the Russian systems though it’s somewhat more sophisticated. For example, instead of firing pellets, the Trophy fires small projectiles that then blast forth a slug of molten metal. (This Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) technology was also used in the most lethal roadside bombs in Iraq). It was mounted on Israeli armor going into Gaza in 2011, where the Israelis fared far better, despite the dense urban terrain, than they had against Hezbollah five years before.

Manufacturer Rafael claims a “less than one percent” chance that Trophy will shred friendly infantry by accident, but nevertheless the Israelis did modify their tactics, said Gouré: The infantry had to follow a safe distance behind the tanks, rather than accompany them. That’s a potential disadvantage given that tanks are notoriously blind behemoths and benefit from friendly infantry acting as their eyes and ears, especially in cluttered urban terrain.

Despite its imperfections, however, “Trophy’s actually battle-tested,” said Gouré. Israeli rival Iron Fist has been thoroughly tested by the Israeli Defense Force. There’s also a German APS from Rheinmetall. “Why bother spending the money,” he asked, to develop an all-new, all-American alternative?

“Trophy, in particular, would be a big upgrade,” agreed the Hill staffer.

Not so fast, said Scales. Trophy is “just typical Israeli overhype and ineffectiveness. It was a great killer of accompanying infantry,” he told me. “They have a very simple and unreliable and very expensive radar system that sits on the turret, and when it detects something coming in, these shotgun shells fire out, much like you’d shoot at clay pigeons…..Here’s the problem with that: If you have infantry nearby, then you kill the infantry.”

By contrast, the Raytheon Quick Kill system developed for the cancelled FCS is “more expensive, but far more reliable,” Scales said. First, Raytheon is a leading maker of radars, so the electronic eyes and brain of the system are world-class. Second, Quick Kill launches its tiny interceptors vertically, upward, before they turn and dive to destroy the incoming missile: That means their blast is directed at the ground rather than sideways, reducing the chance of killing friendly foot troops.

If Quick Kill sounds complicated, that’s because it is. “The thing FCS was doing never worked,” snorted the Hill staffer. “The joke name for it was ‘Five Miracles’ because of the wildly complex firing mechanism. [It’s also] much, much more expensive than Trophy.”

The expense is particularly problematic for an Army trying to wage a new Cold War on a shoestring. “I don’t have a lot of money overall to do modernization and it’s going to be a long time before I’m buying a new vehicle of any type,” said Gouré. “They’ve got to start improving what they’ve got just to meet the existing threat whether it’s Russian stuff on the eastern front or Hamas with third generation ATGMs.”

So this coming year, the Army needs to test how well the different Active Protection Systems actually work. Then it has to decide what kind of performance it can afford.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5665
Location: Sweden
Well the cliffnotes version judging from the assessments that I’ve seen appears to be as follows, with a pinch pf salt:

1. It’s a technologically advanced MBT that rivals or in some aspects is an improvement over western tank designs.
2. It is a very challenging level of technology for the Russians to get to work and they’ve had major teething issues which appears to have caused delays.
3. It is also quite expensive compared to previous Russian/Soviet tank generations and they’re producing/upgrading older models in parallell with the T-14 project.
4. IF they can get it to work reliably and IF they can fund some substantial number of them, western tank units may find themselves at a disadvantage, at least in some scenarios.
5. We need to accelerate development of the follow up models to the Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2 etc. to counter it.

Also I note that the Russians reaffirmed in November that it is slotted for series production under the 2018-2027 armaments program.

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:38 pm
Posts: 2370
I cannot find the source, but I read somewhere that the trumpeted 2000+ T-14s have been cut to about 200...

_________________
A Missouri man had once written the Confederate[s] that all they had to do to get rid of the St. Louis Unionists was to destroy the breweries and seize all the beer: 'By this, the Dutch will all die in a week and the Yankees will then run from this state.'


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 2455
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It seems the two biggest advantages the T-14 may have over current Western tanks is the unmanned turret and active defence system. I'm not sold on the unmanned turret. Having a crew commander with eyes open still provides unparalleled situational awareness. Active defences can be installed on Abrams and Leos as easily as on Armatas. The electronics suites of the latest versions of those vehicles are much improved over those of thirty-five years ago already.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:48 am
Posts: 2582
Offhand, which Russian systems have under-promised and over-delivered? That's not to say it won't be a good tank, but bundling every flavour of the month technology into a prototype proposal is not exactly the same as delivering the systems into the hands of drunk conscripts, effectively.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
DaveAAA wrote:
It seems the two biggest advantages the T-14 may have over current Western tanks is the unmanned turret and active defence system. I'm not sold on the unmanned turret. Having a crew commander with eyes open still provides unparalleled situational awareness. Active defences can be installed on Abrams and Leos as easily as on Armatas. The electronics suites of the latest versions of those vehicles are much improved over those of thirty-five years ago already.


The unmanned turret (and, hence, smaller crew size) is not an advantage. Tanks need maintenance. Complicated gizmos usually require more maintenance man-hours. Less bodies to pull maintenance on more complex kit equals insanely more work per crew member.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
But Unmanned Anything is Transformational!!!

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 533
What are any judgements based upon? The key attributes of a tank - especially a modern one - can't be easily judged from photographs.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5665
Location: Sweden
Poohbah wrote:
DaveAAA wrote:
It seems the two biggest advantages the T-14 may have over current Western tanks is the unmanned turret and active defence system. I'm not sold on the unmanned turret. Having a crew commander with eyes open still provides unparalleled situational awareness. Active defences can be installed on Abrams and Leos as easily as on Armatas. The electronics suites of the latest versions of those vehicles are much improved over those of thirty-five years ago already.


The unmanned turret (and, hence, smaller crew size) is not an advantage. Tanks need maintenance. Complicated gizmos usually require more maintenance man-hours. Less bodies to pull maintenance on more complex kit equals insanely more work per crew member.

There was some suggestion that there are more mechanics at the company level to compensate somewhat for that, how well that will work in practice I think depends on individual circumstances.

One major problem for the west with the T-14 is that it has better armor protection and thereby making penetration by the 120mm guns somewhat dubious from some angles, again provided it works in practice.
Also the new 125mm gun have - unlike the old ones - gotten full lenght rounds unlike the shortened ones in the T-80/T-90 (shortened so they could fit in those autoloaders) and thus can likely penetrate western tanks, at least from some angles.

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3739
Location: CIVLANT
DaveAAA wrote:
It seems the two biggest advantages the T-14 may have over current Western tanks is the unmanned turret and active defence system. I'm not sold on the unmanned turret. Having a crew commander with eyes open still provides unparalleled situational awareness. Active defences can be installed on Abrams and Leos as easily as on Armatas. The electronics suites of the latest versions of those vehicles are much improved over those of thirty-five years ago already.
thirty-five years ago , caught my attention. Even for a front line warship, aside from a big time SLEP CVNs, 35 years is really pushing it against new builds of the same type. From personal painful experience old technically sophisticated, hard driven USN warships, even after a major mid life upgrade availability require far more of the crew than newer ships (after the break in period). I'm not sure if that is the case with Tanks.

That said, I found this article on the M-1. What do you, and others here who actually know something about tanks think of it?


Is America's M1 Abrams Tank Still the Best in the World?

by Sebastien Roblin August 6, 2016 in The National Interest

Back in the 1990s I recall reading Tom Clancy’s loving paean to the M1 Abrams, Armored Cav, in which he related that the unkillable tank had never been knocked out by hostile fire. The Abrams’ 120mm cannon effortlessly peeled the turrets off of T-72 tanks in the Gulf War, while Russian anti-tank missiles and 125mm shells couldn’t pierce the American tank’s Chobham armor. In fact, the Abram’s own gun reportedly struggled to penetrate the Abram’s depleted uranium armor.

Since then the Abrams has been involved in a lot more war, and it has had to forsake its invincible reputation. During the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, several were knocked out by massive IEDs or RPGs in the vulnerable rear armor, others by advanced Russian-made anti-tank missiles such as the AT-14 Kornet. In the ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Iraq, dozens of Saudi and Iraqi Abrams have been taken out by such missiles. Question are these Export versions, less capable than what the US Army uses and how do you factor in the professionalism of the US vs these third world sh!t hole crews?

The Abrams also hasn’t encountered modern tanks. In fact, the Abrams is hardly unrivaled in its (very heavy) weight class: other vehicles such as the German Leopard 2, the British Challenger 2, the French Leclerc, and Israeli Merkava 4 possess similar firepower and protection levels, though of course each type has its advantages and disadvantages.) However, none of them were likely to ever be shooting at an Abrams, so it wasn’t a problem. For decades, the most threatening potential opponent was the Russian T-90 tank—a vehicle which has a fighting chance against the Abrams, but is hardly a peer.

Russia’s new T-14 Armata tank finally does present a peer challenge to the Abrams. While the Abrams still appears to have a slight edge in conventional armor, the Armata compensates with a combination of explosive-reactive armor and a sophisticated radar-guided Afganit Active Protection System (APS) intended to shoot down incoming projectiles. The T-14’s new 2A82 125mm also has improved armor penetration, meaning the Abrams’s frontal armor may be vulnerable at shorter combat ranges (possibly 1,500 meters and less). That's 1.75 miles. Do tanks engage at such ranges?

While it’s still debatable which is the superior tank—they clearly both are capable of destroying one other—the point is that the Abrams can no longer assume the inferiority of opposing tanks.

The SEP V3 Abrams


Another thing they used to say in the 90s was “The Army doesn’t do cities.”

During the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, which involved a gazillion Military Operations in Urban Terrain, a Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) was rushed into service with a number of upgrades to cope with potential ambushes from any direction. Many of those upgrades have been standardized in later Abrams, including improved belly armor, a Crew Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS)—basically, a remote-controlled .50 caliber machine gun so that the crew isn’t exposed when firing—and add-on Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) to the vulnerable sides of the turret.

The U.S. Army had long eschewed ERA, as it can wound nearby friendly infantry and can get “used up”; however, it served as a relatively lightweight and inexpensive means of defending the Abram’s vulnerable side armor from concealed enemy rocket-propelled grenade teams. How does the Infantry tank team work for collective protection when the tank has ERA?

The latest Abrams variant is an upgrade package, the M1A2 SEP V3. Many of its features are practical rather than sexy: upgraded computers, and a new Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) that allows the Abrams to keep its sophisticated systems running while the engine is off, improving the fuel efficiency of the Abram’s notoriously thirsty turbine engines. Maintainability is improved with modular, replaceable cabling.

There are some lethality upgrades, notably a datalink to connect with new Advanced Multi-Purpose programmable airburst shells. These will allow the Abrams’ main gun to shoot high explosive shells that detonate directly above enemy troops in cover—an ability hoped to counter to enemy anti-tank missile teams. Other detonation modes, including one optimized for penetrating walls, are also available. An improved Forward Looking Infrared Sensor (FLIR) will upgrade the Abrams’s detection capabilities and main gun accuracy. A revised, lower-profile remote-controlled machine gun also sports improved cameras.
Pages

Finally—and possibly, most importantly—the M1’s depleted uranium armor package has been improved. How much, you ask? The Defense Department sure ain’t telling! ERA, however, does not appear in the default package. A jammer for disabling wireless IEDs has also been installed.We squids know all about Soft Kill ECM systems. I sure hope the Army has tested them extensively and is constantly updating them against the opposition. An outdated ECM "defense" is almost as good as no defense at all. I'm dated but if I had to bet my life on ECM I'd bet on MK 36 SBROC with both chaff and flares (AKA IR Decoys) over anything purely electronic.

A number of the most important upgrades to the Abram’s capability maybe come independently from the SEP V3 upgrade package.

The first already began entering service in 2015: the M829A4 Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot shell, the latest ammunition type for the Abram’s 120mm M256 cannon. The M829A4 has a segmented depleted uranium penetrator, and has been specially designed to defeat the Relikt explosive reactive armor on the latest Russian tanks, including the T-14 Armata. Future improvements to the Abram’s firepower are likely to come by improving the capabilities of munitions, as they are easier to upgrade and replace than the main guns.

Another innovation, Active Protection Systems (APS), have the potential to revolutionize tank defenses—the best combine ‘soft kill’ measures that obscure the tank and mislead guided missiles, as well as ‘hard kill’ measures that literally shoot down incoming projectiles. These are generally most effective against missiles, though theoretically may be effective against tank shells; the M829A4 shell is supposedly designed to overcome them.

The Israeli Trophy APS has a proven record shooting down deadly anti-tank missiles in recent conflicts. The United States military has attempted to develop its own indigenous system—but recently, the Army and Marines began testing Trophy on M1A2 tanks. Trophy can basically be purchased “off the shelf” and installed relatively quickly, so if the Defense Department decides the Abrams needs the capability, it could pursue the upgrade relatively quickly.

Another upgrade that could be installed quickly if desired would be a Laser Warning Receiver (LWR). An LWR would notify the Abram’s crew if their vehicle was being painted by an enemy laser-range finders and guidance systems—giving the crew an opportunity to hit the reverse pedal and back the tank out of danger.

It should be stressed there are no definitive plans to install the latter two technologies in the SEP V3 Abrams. However they are obvious upgrades that could be implemented quickly and at reasonable cost.

The Future
The Army is currently planning to develop a more radical upgraded Abrams by 2020, the M1A3. Details are sketchy, but reducing the Abram’s roughly seventy-ton weight appears to be one of the priorities. Certainly, weight has limited the ability to deploy the Abrams around the world and restricted which bridges it can cross. Features specifically mentioned include a lighter-weight gun, replacing the wiring with fiber-optic cables to shave off two tons of weight, improved suspension, and adding a Laser Warning Receiver. Other improvements are doubtlessly being considered, but specifics are lacking for now.

This article is from August 2016, before POTUS Trump ( God guide and protect the flawed bastard because we need him) and his merry band of "Generals" replaced the former criminal crew of US militarily hating "Clueless" progressives. Do we know any moe about the M1A3?

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 533
Micael wrote:
One major problem for the west with the T-14 is that it has better armor protection

How can we possibly know that?

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5665
Location: Sweden
HMS Warspite wrote:
Micael wrote:
One major problem for the west with the T-14 is that it has better armor protection

How can we possibly know that?

That it has better armor protection than the notoriously underarmored old Soviet/Russian MBT designs when it is much larger and heavier than those and had a stated goal to increase armor protection?
I believe it would fall under the category of ”qualified guess”.
We can’t know exactly how much better it is of course, but it has been designed with current western MBT guns in mind so it is not unreasonable to presume that it may offer sufficient protection against them from some angles.

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Micael wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
DaveAAA wrote:
It seems the two biggest advantages the T-14 may have over current Western tanks is the unmanned turret and active defence system. I'm not sold on the unmanned turret. Having a crew commander with eyes open still provides unparalleled situational awareness. Active defences can be installed on Abrams and Leos as easily as on Armatas. The electronics suites of the latest versions of those vehicles are much improved over those of thirty-five years ago already.


The unmanned turret (and, hence, smaller crew size) is not an advantage. Tanks need maintenance. Complicated gizmos usually require more maintenance man-hours. Less bodies to pull maintenance on more complex kit equals insanely more work per crew member.

There was some suggestion that there are more mechanics at the company level to compensate somewhat for that, how well that will work in practice I think depends on individual circumstances.


Mechanics at HQ do one no good when you've thrown a track AND you've got a jammed autoloader 12 km away from HQ...

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 2455
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Poohbah wrote:
The unmanned turret (and, hence, smaller crew size) is not an advantage.

Armata still has a three man crew, just like all Soviet/Russian tanks from T-64 on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
DaveAAA wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
The unmanned turret (and, hence, smaller crew size) is not an advantage.

Armata still has a three man crew, just like all Soviet/Russian tanks from T-64 on.


OK, same size crew plus insanely more complex gear to maintain is still not an advantage.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:39 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10921
Poohbah wrote:
OK, same size crew plus insanely more complex gear to maintain is still not an advantage.

Thinking about this logically . . .

If the turret is unmanned, then all three crew members must be in the hull. That must mean that they are much lower (by a meter, possibly two) than in an equivalent tank that has the commander and gunner in the turret. Therefore, their field of vision is much more restricted and target acquisition is seriously impaired. That deficiency must be compensated by using cameras or other viewing devices so that the commander and gunner's situational awareness is not compromised. Which is a lot more to go wrong. Also, separating the gunner from the gun seems a bit dodgy to me.

Why does this sound like some of the projects we had in the 1980s? And I don't mean the ones that worked or even existed.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Was gonna say. Maskirovka. Always maskirovka. The Armata is a distraction from the hidden in plain sight thrust of a massive horse of modernised, ERA- equipped, upgunned uparmoured T-55s sweeping over the horizon.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5665
Location: Sweden
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
OK, same size crew plus insanely more complex gear to maintain is still not an advantage.

Thinking about this logically . . .

If the turret is unmanned, then all three crew members must be in the hull. That must mean that they are much lower (by a meter, possibly two) than in an equivalent tank that has the commander and gunner in the turret. Therefore, their field of vision is much more restricted and target acquisition is seriously impaired. That deficiency must be compensated by using cameras or other viewing devices so that the commander and gunner's situational awareness is not compromised. Which is a lot more to go wrong. Also, separating the gunner from the gun seems a bit dodgy to me.

Why does this sound like some of the projects we had in the 1980s? And I don't mean the ones that worked or even existed.

Yeah they’re in an ”armored capsule” in the hull intended to improve their survival chances. At least it’s fully separated from the munitions and such.

Here’s some illustrations that may be helpful:
Image
Image
Image
Image

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
They claim an “attack range” of 7-8km. For a main gun?

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group