Russian T-90 main battle tank

Josh_TN said:
Presumably this mean Aramata is dead?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but at the very least the T-14 aspect of Armata will have to be modified for the Arena instead of Afganit before entering service so that's yet another investment and delay.

At this time it would make no sense to invest further in the Armata given some much higher priorities especially in air power that are naturally resource intensive.
The Armata could also feed technologies to the T-90 and T-80 projects.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Even if they remove the counter ATGM/RPG capability, i.e. fast target detection and tracking, and stick only to slower drones to make this system serviceable, that would be a major boost and an important first step.
And it would also mean no more barntanks when it's equipped.
Click to expand...
Given numbers of FPVs, it hardly means anything. Until and unless there's some more suitable hardkill solution, which can't be easily overwhelmed, this is literally worse than cope cage, even if works properly.
 
Ainen said:
Given numbers of FPVs, it hardly means anything. Until and unless there's some more suitable hardkill solution, which can't be easily overwhelmed, this is literally worse than cope cage, even if works properly.
Click to expand...
You can put cope cages on an APS-equipped tank. Just more modest ones.
 
Big_Zukini said:
You can put cope cages on an APS-equipped tank. Just more modest ones.
Click to expand...
Modest ones are sort of useless. You either are a spaced armor turtle, or FPV still comes for all vulnerable directions/spots.
After all, APS sensors cover exact same sectors.
 
Ainen said:
Modest ones are sort of useless. You either are a spaced armor turtle, or FPV still comes for all vulnerable directions/spots.
After all, APS sensors cover exact same sectors.
Click to expand...
Tutels also cannot really fight like tanks properly. An APS is a step in the right direction.
A more comprehensive solution is still necessary, like having many more breaching vehicles so they can stop going through the same old predictable routes, C-UAS vehicles, and layers on top of the APS like small arms fire cued by the APS, and so on.
And also just not dumping MBTs on where they shouldn't be used.
Russia just really under-invested in breaching capabilities for a very long time and it's wrong to try and dump all the responsibilities on one vehicle type. This is good progress.
 
Ainen said:
Given numbers of FPVs, it hardly means anything. Until and unless there's some more suitable hardkill solution, which can't be easily overwhelmed, this is literally worse than cope cage, even if works properly.
Click to expand...
Is this based off
A) I want my team to win so bad that whatever new ideas the other team comes up with is stupid.
B)I have actual proof that these systems were used before(they weren't) and were useless.

1767387013183.png
 
Null said:
Is this based off
Click to expand...
(1)Quotes from Ukraine on average and highest numbers of FPVs used per turtle tank. Which is many dozens, up to a hundred. And even this is absolutely not enough - sides don't really need to use traditional means to stop turtles: drones do it by themselves. Non-turtles get disabled several times faster, often on a first hit.

(2)having just about enough math skills to compare it with number of interceptors in Arena(or any other modern APS). Which is usually no more than 2-3 per sector.

Ukrainian foldable screens give some interesting middle ground between two extremes, but for that flexibility they're substantially weaker than turtles or even non-turtle RU screens. And of course, "Phaeton" will still block half APS FoV even if folded, and full - when in use.
 
It means that a modern system of APS units will need hundreds of separate interceptors/charges. Layered systems with a "long range" system like Quick Kill, a "short ranged" system like Trophy or Arena, and a "last ditch" system like Iron Curtain, all integrated and handing targets off to the next closer range unit.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It means that a modern system of APS units will need hundreds of separate interceptors/charges. Layered systems with a "long range" system like Quick Kill, a "short ranged" system like Trophy or Arena, and a "last ditch" system like Iron Curtain, all integrated and handing targets off to the next closer range unit.
Click to expand...
Ukraine and Russia can allocate a hundred drones per target only really in specific areas of anticipated assaults, where they also concentrated a lot of their pre-calibrated artillery and surveillance and such.

A more competent force would seek a vulnerable point before committing to an assault. If it fails to do that, it's pointless to blame the machine.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Ukraine and Russia can allocate a hundred drones per target only really in specific areas of anticipated assaults, where they also concentrated a lot of their pre-calibrated artillery and surveillance and such.

A more competent force would seek a vulnerable point before committing to an assault. If it fails to do that, it's pointless to blame the machine.
Click to expand...
Sure.

But for the direct assaults you still need that many interceptors.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Sure.

But for the direct assaults you still need that many interceptors.
Click to expand...
With a proper C-UAS coverage, an APS can still be very effective by just defeating the occasional ones that get through.
It lets you work with a C-UAS coverage that's 80-90% effective, when otherwise anything below 100% could jeopardize the entire mission.
 
Big_Zukini said:
With a proper C-UAS coverage, an APS can still be very effective by just defeating the occasional ones that get through.
It lets you work with a C-UAS coverage that's 80-90% effective, when otherwise anything below 100% could jeopardize the entire mission.
Click to expand...
I happen to think that each vehicle needs C-UAS coverage, since the big systems like M-SHORAD are entirely too fragile to be up front with the tanks.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I happen to think that each vehicle needs C-UAS coverage, since the big systems like M-SHORAD are entirely too fragile to be up front with the tanks.
Click to expand...
Definitely on some HAPC. Personal C-UAS is also so much simpler once you've already installed an APS. You can literally just slave the existing RWS to it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom