• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
There was an earlier version of this that was successfully developed that may have been called "The Weapon of Sixty Miracles." For all Soviet and Warsaw Pact tank attacks.
I would atleast try to stay on subject for this thread. I remember I got immediately banned without 3 warnings on another aviation forum when I stated on a different thread that aircrafts are easy targets for hypersonic missiles.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
90
What laser attack range?
range estimates of what the T-14 can be. Estimates say for the laser range finder is over 5km but I am assuming it will be higher because the T-72B3 http://tank72.tass.ru/5/ says this for the 9,600 meters "Maximum range of target recognition by gunner’s sight TPV Sosna-U"

What 100km spot range for radar?!


“On "Armata", as well as on the T-50 fighter, the latest radar station with an active phased antenna array (AFAR) will be installed. There are no such solutions on any tank in the world. The system is capable of simultaneously leading up to 40 dynamic and up to 25 aerodynamic targets, controlling territory within a radius of 100 kilometers and automatically destroying targets up to 0.3 meters in size. Thanks to the presence of AFAR, Armata is positioned as a universal ground attack machine, which includes a full-fledged tactical missile system, an anti-aircraft air defense system, an army reconnaissance and target designation complex, and the tank itself.”

“New armor is not the only means of protecting the crew of “Almaty”. According to some reports, this tank will be the first to install new means of active protection against rocket-propelled grenades and sub-caliber shells. This is the latest development of the Kolomna Engineering Bureau - “Afganit”. From open sources it is known about it that the radar system works in the millimeter range, for the first time uses protective ammunition with a warhead like a strike core, and not fragmentation as before. The nearest line for intercepting missiles, shells or rocket-propelled grenades is 15-20 meters, and the maximum speed for intercepting armor-piercing sub-caliber shells is 1700 m / s. In the future, it is planned to install an even more advanced Barrier protection system on Armata. It will already be able to intercept targets flying at speeds from 2500 to 3000 m / s.”
The X-band N036B-1-01 side array on Su-57 and the defensive Afganit array on T-14 are not the same kind, N036B is an X-band (8-12Ghz) radar. Afganit is a (26.5-40 GHz) radar for hard kill measure and N036B is about 5 times the size of Afganit.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
What laser attack range?
range estimates of what the T-14 can be. Estimates say for the laser range finder is over 5km but I am assuming it will be higher because the T-72B3 http://tank72.tass.ru/5/ says this for the 9,600 meters "Maximum range of target recognition by gunner’s sight TPV Sosna-U"

What 100km spot range for radar?!


“On "Armata", as well as on the T-50 fighter, the latest radar station with an active phased antenna array (AFAR) will be installed. There are no such solutions on any tank in the world. The system is capable of simultaneously leading up to 40 dynamic and up to 25 aerodynamic targets, controlling territory within a radius of 100 kilometers and automatically destroying targets up to 0.3 meters in size. Thanks to the presence of AFAR, Armata is positioned as a universal ground attack machine, which includes a full-fledged tactical missile system, an anti-aircraft air defense system, an army reconnaissance and target designation complex, and the tank itself.”

“New armor is not the only means of protecting the crew of “Almaty”. According to some reports, this tank will be the first to install new means of active protection against rocket-propelled grenades and sub-caliber shells. This is the latest development of the Kolomna Engineering Bureau - “Afganit”. From open sources it is known about it that the radar system works in the millimeter range, for the first time uses protective ammunition with a warhead like a strike core, and not fragmentation as before. The nearest line for intercepting missiles, shells or rocket-propelled grenades is 15-20 meters, and the maximum speed for intercepting armor-piercing sub-caliber shells is 1700 m / s. In the future, it is planned to install an even more advanced Barrier protection system on Armata. It will already be able to intercept targets flying at speeds from 2500 to 3000 m / s.”
The X-band N036B-1-01 side array on Su-57 and the defensive Afganit array on T-14 are not the same kind, N036B is an X-band (8-12Ghz) radar. Afganit is a (26.5-40 GHz) radar for hard kill measure and N036B is about 5 times the size of Afganit.
I have heard another source stating that both use LTCC modules but of course the frequencies are different for both. I am just listing a source that says 100km for the afghanit. I have heard that there is a 70km lock on range(for fighter sized aircraft) with 280mm size for a 35kg weight missile radar(in a 2003 source if your interested) and usually their missile radars operate above X-band. I cant really decide the credibility on the range estimates or how far they got on their progress in electronics.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
391
Reaction score
90
Just how much cooling Armata can spare to cool that so called "100 km spot range" radar...
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
90
I have heard another source stating that both use LTCC modules but of course the frequencies are different for both. I am just listing a source that says 100km for the afghanit. I have heard that there is a 70km lock on range(for fighter sized aircraft) with 280mm size for a 35kg weight missile radar(in a 2003 source if your interested) and usually their missile radars operate above X-band. I cant really decide the credibility on the range estimates or how far they got on their progress in electronics.
They are not the same size and they don't operate at the same frequency, so clearly they are not the same. LTCC is irrelevant.
I haven't check your missile data but missile seeker will have many advantages that Afganit can't have:
Missiles are given the general location and direction of target so they can use narrow beam, long pulse , long dwell time to maximize range. On the other hand, afganit must detect, track target on its own and tank are often attacked by more than 1 RPG or ATGM at a time from multiple direction so afganit must find and track multiple target at a time. So it must minimize scan time with wider beam, short dwell time, short pulse. What good for scan time is terrible for range and vice versa. There are also less ground side lobe clutter for a missile a few km on the air than a small hard kill radar on a tank few feet from ground. Making long range missile seeker is impressive feat, but it is far cry from giving hard kill protection the same ability. From a tactical stand point of view, tank isn't the same as a long range surface to air battery or a fighter aircraft, in short it doesn't have the ability to strike from very long range like the later two. This is crucial because if your radar has 100 km spot range, chance are your enemy will be alert of your existant from twice as far. Passive geolocation of a ground target are simple and rapid and as you won't be turning off your hard kill defensive system (or it is useless), very quickly your enemy will know where your tank are and start to attack it. What can a tank do if it is attacked by air to ground missile, Artillery, or bombs from distance further than 16 km?. May be retreat but nothing much. There is no real reasons to make a tank hard kill defensive system with powerful radar and long range, because tank doesn't have the tools to retaliate long range attack and that are not their role.
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
@Ronny/mig-31bm/eloise/kimleeryo/garrya/moon_light(or any user of these accounts that create bottomless pits on any thread with any user besides me)

They are not the same size and they don't operate at the same frequency, so clearly they are not the same. LTCC is irrelevant.
they could be referring to the same material.

Missiles are given the general location and direction of target so they can use narrow beam, long pulse , long dwell time to maximize range. On the other hand, afganit must detect, track target on its own and tank are often attacked by more than 1 RPG or ATGM at a time from multiple direction so afganit must find and track multiple target at a time. So it must minimize scan time with wider beam, short dwell time, short pulse. What good for scan time is terrible for range and vice versa. There are also less ground side lobe clutter for a missile a few km on the air than a small hard kill radar on a tank few feet from ground. Making long range missile seeker is impressive feat, but it is far cry from giving hard kill protection the same ability.
1578233585389.png

It looks like each radar on the tank has to cover a certain sector and just looking at the 1st image of the T-14 tank's radars I am guessing there is 4-5 which means 90-72 degree coverage and some missile radars be close to covering that area and some can be one point with wider lock on beams.

This is crucial because if your radar has 100 km spot range, chance are your enemy will be alert of your existant from twice as far. Passive geolocation of a ground target are simple and rapid and as you won't be turning off your hard kill defensive system (or it is useless), very quickly your enemy will know where your tank are and start to attack it. What can a tank do if it is attacked by air to ground missile, Artillery, or bombs from distance further than 16 km?. May be retreat but nothing much. There is no real reasons to make a tank hard kill defensive system with powerful radar and long range, because tank doesn't have the tools to retaliate long range attack and that are not their role.
This tank doesn't operate alone, also having a radar of that range will allow you to track targets and give those target position to other units for a strike. The radars might even be LPI.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
85
1578233585389.png


It looks like each radar on the tank has to cover a certain sector and just looking at the 1st image of the T-14 tank's radars I am guessing there is 4-5 which means 90-72 degree coverage and some missile radars be close to covering that area and some can be one point with wider lock on beams
It doesn't look like anything because those are not bloody radars. Stop spamming shitty yellow "sources" about things you have no idea about.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
391
Reaction score
90
Well I do not think the Merkava has plans of getting 30mm anti-aircraft guns, or 12km ATGMs(not counting what ranges the newer ones would bring).
Even if it did it wont rely on a small antenna.

BTW do you have a source about their APS stopping KEPs? I do not know why people claim one thing without providing a source for it.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
It doesn't look like anything because those are not bloody radars. Stop spamming shitty yellow "sources" about things you have no idea about.
Besides throwing a tantrum, what are they if they are not radars. You do realize there are APS that use radars correct? Name me a system where missiles outrange the tracking performances of any military system? The ka-52 has hermes 20km missiles with a 100km radar while the apache has a 10km radar but with 8km hellfire missiles. I have never seen a military system where missiles outrange their infrared or radar tracking systems. the new sprinter has a 12km range, and the sokol-V in development might be even longer in range compared to that missile. If current optics on the T-14 have a more limited range than the missile that leaves one more option left.

Even if it did it wont rely on a small antenna.
Some small antennas like on missile's seem to provide quite the adequate lock on range right?

Also thanks for the Iron fist. I will find out the stopping speeds of the system if such sources exist later
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
391
Reaction score
90
Some small antennas like on missile's seem to provide quite the adequate lock on range right?
Yes, because :

1.It only need to deal with a single target. so there is no need at all to divide resources for multiple targets or other functions.
2.It can have such range because it have small search area. Had the missile need to search target on its own the range will not be as high as when it receive cueing from the parent aircraft.
3.It flies and *hopefully* not having to deal with clutter environment. When you do have clutter and multipath, you wont have that range.

Those three unfortunately you wont find on APS radar. Plus the APS radar have power limitation from its parent vehicle. it may not have enough to spare Or not having enough cooling to cool it.

You want that 100 km range ? You need bigger antenna and bigger power supply.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
85
Besides throwing a tantrum, what are they if they are not radars.
They are optical sensors. This is known for years. Radar is present on picture you posted, but it seems you have no idea where it is or how it works.

T-14 does not have 100km radar.

Ka-52 does not have 100km radar.

T-14 does not use APS radars for missile guidance.

Just stop.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
Some small antennas like on missile's seem to provide quite the adequate lock on range right?
Yes, because :

1.It only need to deal with a single target. so there is no need at all to divide resources for multiple targets or other functions.
2.It can have such range because it have small search area. Had the missile need to search target on its own the range will not be as high as when it receive cueing from the parent aircraft.
3.It flies and *hopefully* not having to deal with clutter environment. When you do have clutter and multipath, you wont have that range.

Those three unfortunately you wont find on APS radar. Plus the APS radar have power limitation from its parent vehicle. it may not have enough to spare Or not having enough cooling to cool it.

You want that 100 km range ? You need bigger antenna and bigger power supply.
1578256088874.png

T-14 seems to be pretty big for a tank in comparison to the T-90.

1578256174670.png

They are optical sensors. This is known for years. Radar is present on picture you posted, but it seems you have no idea where it is or how it works.

T-14 does not have 100km radar.

Ka-52 does not have 100km radar.

T-14 does not use APS radars for missile guidance.

Just stop.

http://xn--80aajzhcnfck0a.xn--p1ai/PublicDocuments/0602493.pdf look at page 31 check out those impressive ranges


look at page 46 that is for a 120 degree radar view for a 140kg weight


pg 47 "The millimetric-wavelength, known also as the Ka-band (a portion of the so-called microwave part of the frequency spectrum, with frequencies in the range from 26.5 to 40 GHz and wavelength from 7.5 to 10mm), chosen for an attack helicopter, which typically conducts missions at low and ultra-low altitude is less sensitive to ground clutter than the X-band (centimetricwavelength). X-band is commonly used on fixed-wing aircraft for air-to-air and air-to-surface applications and also on helicopters for maritime search and airborne early warning purposes. It can provide high-resolution mapping of underlying terrain, detecting radar-reflecting stationary and moving objects on the ground and also able to detect and track air targets. In general, the Kaband is deemed suitable for detecting ground, sea and air targets and also for supporting precision"

If you feel impressed by the 100km arbalet are you still going to be in denial if I post a 150km range

pg 50 "For the Ka-52K Katran shipborne attack helicopter Phazotron-NIIR offers a X-band or dual-band radar, derived from the FH-01 Arbalet, boasting a meaningful range against sea surface targets, exceeding 150km (81nm) when employed to detect and track large ships. Based on the FH-01 Arbalet design, it will feature an add-on centimetric-wavelength channel working in the X-band, emitting at a frequency of 9 GHz - 3cm wavelength. It would be optimised for long-range detection of sea surface targets, capable of detecting large ships at a distance of between 150 and 180km (81 to 97nm) and will sport enhanced capabilities for air target detection and tracking. Phazotron-NIIR’s designer general, Yuriy Guskov, commented that, in principle, the dualwavelength capability could be provided by both the original mechanical-scan parabolic antenna of the original FH-01 Arbalet-52 by utilising two separate emitters; one for the milimetric and the other for centimetric wavelenths with a single antenna reflector. Alternatively, this capability can be also obtained by introducing a purposedesigned electronic-scan active phased array"

I believe tanks have better weight distribution than helicopters. while also taking the size into consideration compared to a t-90. Also the antennas do not seem that big for the helicopters either. And the APS can deal with more narrow scans. Their company has improved on the weight characteristics of lowering weight by half for some aerial radars.

1578257443312.png
I am sure that the weight and size characteristics have down sized for the phazatron version than the arbalet version. And the arbalet version seems pretty small for a 120 degree scan, while the afganit can have a more narrow beam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
This is so blatantly useless...
What is? the range? You guys do realize this tank is also designed to engage fixed wing aircraft, drones and helicopters correct? And you also do realize the tanks own ATGMs out-range the current optics on the tank right? Also the crew would need a detection range that is longer than its own 12km ATGMs to give them enough time to load an ATGM instead of a sabot round as one example to engage a helicopter as a target. The Sokol-V in development is also estimated to have a longer range. All this burden of proof, but what is getting me more upset is how quick you are to also deny the range estimates of their helicopters in comparison to ours.

Look at the refleks that ATGM is within the optics range of the T-90

The size of one 100km radar(or longer range than that engaging multiple targets at high frequencies as well) looks like a desk top computer, I am sure there are modifications to flip a desktop computer to its side as there is to design the radar layout for the APS and also the tank appears a lot more bigger than the T-90. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3784.html this APS with 360 degree coverage weights 800kg and uses .6 kw such requirements are not that difficult for the T-14 to acquire especially with the improvements made over a long time.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
90
they could be referring to the same material.
Same material doesn't give the same radar capability, specially when the two radar are no where close in size or frequency.


The coverage sector isn't the same as the beam width. Missile seeker can have very wide cover sector to help them track target from offboresight direction, but their beam are very narrow.
SAM radar are offline when they are not used, to minimize the chance they are found. But you turn off the radar of Afganit then it will not do its job of protecting the tank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
90
You are starting to remind me of kurt tesch from quora do you have an account there?

http://xn--80aajzhcnfck0a.xn--p1ai/PublicDocuments/0602493.pdf look at page 31 check out those impressive ranges


look at page 46 that is for a 120 degree radar view for a 140kg weight


pg 47 "The millimetric-wavelength, known also as the Ka-band (a portion of the so-called microwave part of the frequency spectrum, with frequencies in the range from 26.5 to 40 GHz and wavelength from 7.5 to 10mm), chosen for an attack helicopter, which typically conducts missions at low and ultra-low altitude is less sensitive to ground clutter than the X-band (centimetricwavelength). X-band is commonly used on fixed-wing aircraft for air-to-air and air-to-surface applications and also on helicopters for maritime search and airborne early warning purposes. It can provide high-resolution mapping of underlying terrain, detecting radar-reflecting stationary and moving objects on the ground and also able to detect and track air targets. In general, the Kaband is deemed suitable for detecting ground, sea and air targets and also for supporting precision"

If you feel impressed by the 100km arbalet are you still going to be in denial if I post a 150km range

pg 50 "For the Ka-52K Katran shipborne attack helicopter Phazotron-NIIR offers a X-band or dual-band radar, derived from the FH-01 Arbalet, boasting a meaningful range against sea surface targets, exceeding 150km (81nm) when employed to detect and track large ships. Based on the FH-01 Arbalet design, it will feature an add-on centimetric-wavelength channel working in the X-band, emitting at a frequency of 9 GHz - 3cm wavelength. It would be optimised for long-range detection of sea surface targets, capable of detecting large ships at a distance of between 150 and 180km (81 to 97nm) and will sport enhanced capabilities for air target detection and tracking. Phazotron-NIIR’s designer general, Yuriy Guskov, commented that, in principle, the dualwavelength capability could be provided by both the original mechanical-scan parabolic antenna of the original FH-01 Arbalet-52 by utilising two separate emitters; one for the milimetric and the other for centimetric wavelenths with a single antenna reflector. Alternatively, this capability can be also obtained by introducing a purposedesigned electronic-scan active phased array"

I believe tanks have better weight distribution than helicopters. while also taking the size into consideration compared to a t-90. Also the antennas do not seem that big for the helicopters either. And the APS can deal with more narrow scans. Their company has improved on the weight characteristics of lowering weight by half for some aerial radars.

View attachment 624262
I am sure that the weight and size characteristics have down sized for the phazatron version than the arbalet version. And the arbalet version seems pretty small for a 120 degree scan, while the afganit can have a more narrow beam.
How can you think Afganit radar range is close to Kopyo-A on Ka-28?. Are you still incapable of understand a hard kill defensive system will have vastly different requirements from fire control radar, and these requirements will strongly limit its range?.
120 degrees radar field of view for 120 kg weight isn't impressive, and it isn't what I am talking about when I said missile seeker can use narrow beam. Let say each small afganit radar sensor have to cover 90*90 degrees sector, their beam width is 1*1 degree, we have 8100 beam positions. To get a stable target signal, you must get several return pulse, so let say at each beam position, the radar send 10 pulses, speed of light is 300000 km/s, so it will take 0.0066 seconds for 10 pulse to travel 100 km then back. To scan 8100 beam positions will take you 51 seconds. This is ok for helicopter's radar and missile's seeker. But a tank defense system that need 51 seconds to fully scan its field of view is useless because they need to protect the tank from very short range attack and happens in milli second. So defensive system must use much wider beam and shorter dwell time, fewer pulse to minimize scan time. But if you do that, then your range is cut short by several order of magnitude
21E04E31-9A9B-4534-8EAB-5B235A61F663.jpeg
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
T-14 seems to be pretty big for a tank in comparison to the T-90.
Missile seeker does not deal with whatever APS may deal with
it tracks a fighter size target from 70kms and one can assume that passenger sized aircrafts can be done at a further distance. Also its more than one radar which can work seperately to track multiple targets. that is from 20 years ago. Have you also looked at the helicopter range estimates and the size of that radar? Tanks do deal with 800kg weight APS. I do not see a problem with the distribution of such radar systems. Power is not an issue as you said it is either the T-14 weight distribution is not much different from the T-90 with a higher rated HP engine.

BTW can you tell me what guidance system the tank is able to hit 12km+ targets?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
391
Reaction score
90
it tracks a fighter size target from 70kms and one can assume that passenger sized aircrafts can be done at a further distance.
This is the missile seeker. Not the APS. and clearly i have deal with that with my 3 points above on how it can reach 70 km range.

Also its more than one radar which can work seperately to track multiple targets. that is from 20 years ago. Have you also looked at the helicopter range estimates and the size of that radar?
Oh what radar your are talking now ? I see you are trying to mix missile seeker with APS and then trying to mix Helicopter radar on it.

Can we stick to APS radar please ?

Tanks do deal with 800kg weight APS. I do not see a problem with the distribution of such radar systems. Power is not an issue as you said it is either the T-14 weight distribution is not much different from the T-90 with a higher rated HP engine.
Do i ever mention weight ?

I mention power. and power is not weight. Are you really sure with 0.6 KW you can feed all 4 radars and then gain 100 km range in each faces ?
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
This is the missile seeker. Not the APS. and clearly i have deal with that with my 3 points above on how it can reach 70 km range.
comparing ranges to something done with less power and weight

Oh what radar your are talking now ? I see you are trying to mix missile seeker with APS and then trying to mix Helicopter radar on it.

Can we stick to APS radar please ?
have you not seen the frequency listed for the arbalet? The weight, size distribution and its ability to track multiple targets? I am trying to find something for you that has a very comparative role

Do i ever mention weight ?

I mention power. and power is not weight. Are you really sure with 0.6 KW you can feed all 4 radars and then gain 100 km range in each faces ?
HP can be converted to kW and since the weight and range estimates are the same as the T-90. the HP engine can produce way more power. I am sure you are aware of that right?
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
391
Reaction score
90
comparing ranges to something done with less power and weight
And DIFFERENT operating condition. You forget to take account of that one.

have you not seen the frequency listed for the arbalet? The weight, size distribution and its ability to track multiple targets? I am trying to find something for you that has a very comparative role
And that Radar have bigger antenna. different operating conditions and clearly not having the range you claimed.

and most importantly Ships have RCS in the range of Thousands of sqm.

HP can be converted to kW and since the weight and range estimates are the same as the T-90. the HP engine can produce way more power. I am sure you are aware of that right?
Hp to KW ? Yes But dont forget that the tank needs majority of it to actually Move. and that power also needed to power other electronics in the tank. and let's not forget so called "Efficiency" Some of that 0.6 KW will clearly be converted into heat. you wont emit the entirity of that power. You will only at best emit several Watts to some tens of Watts and that wont do 100 Km range.

and your tank will likely have APU which have less power generation capability. So your APS will be limited by that.

You aware of those ? i wonder.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
And DIFFERENT operating condition. You forget to take account of that one.
Yes, but range estimates for a 35kg radar was able to do that, and 140kg tracks slightly further against multiple targets. Functions for the radar to just focus on one target can also be done for the T-14 with a more narrow beam, however I do not have access for that.

And that Radar have bigger antenna. different operating conditions and clearly not having the range you claimed.

and most importantly Ships have RCS in the range of Thousands of sqm.
oh yes target estimates are needed as well, 100km can also find buildings besides ships. No one knows what RCS estimates they have given for 100kms.

Hp to KW ? Yes But dont forget that the tank needs majority of it to actually Move. and that power also needed to power other electronics in the tank. and let's not forget so called "Efficiency" Some of that 0.6 KW will clearly be converted into heat. you wont emit the entirity of that power. You will only at best emit several Watts to some tens of Watts and that wont do 100 Km range.

and your tank will likely have APU which have less power generation capability. So your APS will be limited by that.

You aware of those ? i wonder.
It has a way higher HP engine than a T-90. I am getting estimates from this. 18.2 hp/tonne (13.3 kW/tonne) (T-90)
20.4 hp/tonne (15 kW/tonne) (T-90A)

46.5 tonnes for a T-90a, 46.5 times 15 = 697.5 kilowatts to move this. 950HP for entire engine or 736 kilowatts. I would like to see you give me the HP for the T-14. Also the estimates are from German journalists.


"The German newspaper Stern considers the T-14 "Putin’s new miracle weapon." The publication notes the increased cross-country ability of the Unified tracked platform Armata, on the basis of which a whole line of armored vehicles will be created in the future. Inside the tank, as German journalists write, is literally crammed with the latest electronics. The T-14 controls the territory within a radius of 100 kilometers and is capable of tracking up to 40 dynamic and 25 aerodynamic targets. The crew is reliably protected not only by armor, but also by a special armored capsule. In a flat uninhabited tower, there is a 125-mm smoothbore gun, which, as Stern admits, surpasses the gun of the German Leopard-2 tank. And this development of the military-industrial complex of Germany, by the way, was previously considered the best in the world. "

There are also a bunch of sources that say it is also given as an air defense role. Try to find me any tank with plans of putting anti-aircraft guns, claims of putting anti-aircraft missiles, or tanks using missiles with an above 10km range. Some APS are limited to 1,500m/s the estimates and planned are even higher for this tank.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/WorldwideEquipmentGuide_2015_Ground_Systems.pdf page 65, it seems to have a pretty decent range like 40kms, somewhat high frequency in J-band, tracks 20 targets and the consumption is 250 watts. The APS for the T-14 would have much narrower beam scans as well. its size looks similar to the T-14 as well. The T-14 HP consumption is as much as the m1a2 and leopard but with less the weight. There shouldn't be any problem especially if the weight characteristics have improved on the new APS than compared to the drozd-2 as well. And the HP of the tank can be estimated as the same as a leopard or m1a2 but of course with lower weight so the power consumption of drawing more watts should not be an issue. I am also sure that 40km range would be longer at a 72-90 degree beam than one that is at 180 or 360.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
90
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/WorldwideEquipmentGuide_2015_Ground_Systems.pdf page 65, it seems to have a pretty decent range like 40kms, somewhat high frequency in J-band, tracks 20 targets and the consumption is 250 watts. The APS for the T-14 would have much narrower beam scans as well. its size looks similar to the T-14 as well. The T-14 HP consumption is as much as the m1a2 and leopard but with less the weight. There shouldn't be any problem especially if the weight characteristics have improved on the new APS than compared to the drozd-2 as well.
KREDO-1E aperture is not similar to Afganit's aperture in any way. Kredo-1E aperture is bigger than the front turret of SNAR-10M and at least 6 times bigger than the small laptop come with it while Afganit's radar is only slightly bigger than a human head. Kredo-1E is easily 6 times bigger than Afganit. 250 watt is the power consumption for single Kredo aperture while 0.6 kw power consumption of Afganit is divided over 4 apertures so each aperture has 150 watt power supply

1D9EEA11-9E1A-45FC-AC36-19EC7A21D28F.jpeg
0EC6125E-5769-4516-BE8B-C9164F034941.jpeg
560D1FEC-06CF-4544-8797-6012D5C742F8.jpeg
F7633632-957D-4059-9A41-9F9F58AF9CD2.jpeg
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
I guess I am going to start using Yandex when searching for russian related sources XD


"Since the T-14 radar is declared Ka-band, this means that it has a theoretical accuracy of up to 5 arc minutes (0.08 °). In practice, for similar radars like the Credo-1E, accuracy of about 10 meters in range and 0.1 ° in azimuth can be achieved. Independent rotation panoramic infrared sight T-14 can clarify the azimuth of the detected target with even greater accuracy, as was done on a similar machine XM1209 in the program Future Combat Systems. However, even without taking into account the refinement of the coordinates of the targets by optical methods, the radar allows you to effectively correct the fire of self-propelled guns following the T-14, and, as a whole, conduct your own fire quite effectively with high-explosive fragmentation shells. Indeed, a radar with an accuracy of 0.1 ° at 6 km can give coordinates with an accuracy of about 10 meters. At 10 km, the error will be about 17 meters, which is enough to shell infantry and lightly armored vehicles from self-propelled guns with 152 mm shells. Note that even small Doppler radars can also see well the explosions of shells on flying fragments, so they can be used to correct artillery fire, reporting a correction to shooting. An important fact is that even after specifying the azimuth for a panoramic sight, the tank commander may not use a laser range finder and the target will not be able to take self-defense measures like a smoke screen."


"But all such measures, on the whole, turned out to be ineffective against the hypersensitive antennas of electronic intelligence systems and, in particular, AWACS aircraft, which automatically calculated the positions of tanks at a great distance immediately after turning on KAZ radars even with a weak signal. In the T-14 concept, they decided not to fight this, but to make the flaw a dignity, that is, to strengthen the radar power, making it even more noticeable, but turning it into a reconnaissance target in the “network-centric war” scenario, to issue targets for destruction in the first place other combat vehicles.

In addition to the four panels of the surveillance radar on the T-14, there are also two ultra-fast response radars for a short distance. These radars are needed for the operation of destructive elements of the KAZ against shells (BOPS), as well as for masking purposes, when the T-14 main observation radar is turned off, this technology is described in more detail in the section on the active protection complex. Surveillance radar of 4 panels controls the installation of multispectral curtains, and also performs the functions of reconnaissance targets. "

"Machine-gun armament consists of an anti-aircraft installation with a Kord machine gun, controlled remotely by a commander or gunner, and paired with a PKTM gun. The Kord anti-aircraft machine gun is mounted in its own robotic tower, integrated with the tank’s AFAR radar, thermal imagers and is capable of hitting even high-speed targets at distances of up to 1,500 meters, therefore, in addition to the air defense function, it is integrated into the tank’s active defense system. "


Machine gun "Cord" performs the role of anti-aircraft installation of the tank and its air defense. Integrated with active tank protection. It has its own robotic tower, thermal imagers and AFAR radar, thanks to which it is capable of hitting even high-speed targets at a distance of 1.5 kilometers. Designed primarily for the destruction of shells and missiles.







I have heard that some APS are planned to use LIDAR. And looking through APS systems estimated ranges are for tracking are 5-100 meters..... but 1.5kms. It seems that 1.5km range is the max effectiveness for the gun which makes it seem the tracking distance is longer. I have not found any sources of such long ranges, nor a tank that uses a machine gun to engage shells and missiles. And using that radar for a nice touch of accuracy like 17 meters for 10kms.



A projectile coming directly at you with a radar pointing directly at it can give quite the small surface for reflections. Does anyone have that RCS distance calculator?
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com

Deliveries of new Armata tanks to the troops will begin in 2020

MOSCOW, February 3. / TASS /. Deliveries of armored vehicles on the Armata platform developed by Uralvagonzavod (part of Rostec) to pilot military operations will begin this year. This was announced by General Director of UVZ Alexander Potapov in an interview published on Monday in the newspaper " Vedomosti ".

"In 2020, we will begin deliveries for the pilot combat operation of the machine. During the factory tests, all the characteristics laid down in it were confirmed," Potapov said.

According to him, at present, the main stages of the preparatory work are being completed, which already allows "to enter the series." Potapov noted that "there is no such tank in the world - and in the coming years nothing of the kind will even come close to competitors". "Those who say that difficulties arise there, forget: the same T-72 was created much longer, but here we are talking about a completely new product," said the general director of UVZ.

When asked about the timing of the export deliveries of “Almaty”, Potapov answered that foreign customers prefer, as a rule, to make purchases when the goods were purchased by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. "In the near future we will develop an export lookport, and the deliveries themselves, if there is a solution from our management, can become real in the foreseeable future," he said.

In mid-January, Rostec’s head Sergei Chemezov told TASS that supplies to armored forces on the Armata platform had not yet begun.

Armata is a heavy tracked unified platform developed by Uralvagonzavod Corporation. On the basis of the platform, the main tank, infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier and a number of other armored vehicles are created.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com

"The AU-220M is an unmanned cannon and machine-gun module. It is designed to serve as the armament for various combat vehicles, first of all, infantry fighting vehicles both operational (upon their upgrade) and new hardware based on the Armata, Kurganets-25 and Bumerang platforms. The module can be used as the armament of small-displacement ships and boats.

The gun mount has a circular rotation and a firing range of up to 14.5 km with a maximum rate of fire of 80 rounds per minute. The ammunition load includes 80 unitary 57mm munitions: multifunctional remote-controlled, armor-piercing and guided projectiles, which allows effectively striking small-size unmanned aerial vehicles, low-flying aircraft and helicopters, and also land-based light-armored hardware and field fortifications."
 

Stiven

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
There will be no new tanks.
These boobs, as usual, built mock-ups. In the hope that they will buy or steal the engines and electronics, as usual.
There are no engines, no electronics, no ammunition for the new gun.

The project is dead.
However, he was born already dead.
 

Iron Felix

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
206
Reaction score
406
There will be no new tanks.
These boobs, as usual, built mock-ups. In the hope that they will buy or steal the engines and electronics, as usual.
There are no engines, no electronics, no ammunition for the new gun.

The project is dead.
However, he was born already dead.
From 2011:
A-85-3/A-85-3A engine, "16 new engines made", "completed all tests"
Electronics? Do you think Russians can't make sophisticated electronics? Russians create a robots, tablets, processors, 3d printers, etc.
Ammunition? But, why? Because no one saw these shells? In 1982-88 tested a "Object 187" with 2A66 125 mm gun - more powerful than standart 2A46.
 
Last edited:

Stiven

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
You are funny.
In a good way. ;-)






You can go on forever ...
LOL
 
Last edited:

Iron Felix

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
206
Reaction score
406
About "Chaika" - it's other project:
About ammunition:
1502879122_1.jpg
mango-snaryad.jpg
"Shell production is almost completely destroyed" - ok... But, where is a production data? Where is documents? I don't believe various "candidates", "professors", "veterans", etc. I know when a historian-archivist is lying about historical documents. I know when a veteran is lying about the war and about other veterans. I know when different freaks called "experts" lie about everything. I know when the media reposts news from the jokes site.
About this fake robot - AND?!... It's a all robots? MRK-27, MRK-35, AR-600, Promobot, etc.? And, military "robots", Uran-9, Uran-14, Nerehta, Kungas, Argo, Platforma-M, etc.
LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
332
I personally have no doubt the Russians can make whatever they put their minds to but like everywhere else there will be teething problems to deal with. Nwhere in the world do these projects just work out of the box. Some of the problems with the first laser range finding equipment we got for testing had the prism reversed. We had to have a second logic button fitted because the range to a target could be reported as low as two metres when there was a little rain in the air. A full blown rainfall was not manageable. Technical projects will probably always be a pain on first development/trials/deployment.
 
Last edited:

Stiven

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
These are the same "Mangoes" that were developed in 1988?
Which production was stopped back in 1993?
And in 2016 they were taken out of stock and painted at the Leningrad plant of Karl Liebnecht with new paint for sale in Pakistan?

Of course, this is an ultramodern high-tech ammunition. LOL
For reference, now this factory makes ...
... water fittings for urban park systems. And not the best quality ...

Awesome photo.
Here is a better one. ;-)


And the new engine is also cool. Interestingly, but there is enough space for two thousand gnomes? Well, at least they won't make a fire during the parade. LOL
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Iron Felix

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
206
Reaction score
406
These are the same "Mangoes" that were developed in 1988?
Which production was stopped back in 1993?
And in 2016 they were taken out of stock and painted at the Leningrad plant of Karl Liebnecht with new paint for sale in Pakistan?

Of course, this is an ultramodern high-tech ammunition. LOL
For reference, now this factory makes ...
... water fittings for urban park systems. And not the best quality ...

Awesome photo.
Here is a better one. ;-)


And the new engine is also cool. Interestingly, but there is enough space for two thousand gnomes? Well, at least they won't make a fire during the parade. LOL
Today, produce a Mango-M.
1561371770_9x_ht5gibf8.jpg
Maybe, you need a photos with Russian military plants, with new Russian ammunition, guns? Or, you need a Russian documents about make a new ammunition? Are you seriously?
About engine... What's so funny? Reportedly, a stop at the parade rehearsal was planned. I do not know if this can be believed, but, even if it was really a breakdown, does that mean the tank is bad? Let me remind you that almost all complex equipment at the beginning of their "career" breaks down. If the Russians made a new engine and it breaks down, "stupid Russians", "tomorrow Russia will fall apart" scream around. If Elon Musk made a rocket that exploded, pseudo-bulletproof glass that damaged with a steel ball, "Well, you understand... These are only prototypes...". But, why? Following your logic, the Germans cannot produce tanks and guns at all - the Germans themselves write that a lot of equipment in the army is inoperative. "We have only 20 operational helicopters out of 152" - from "Bild". 13% (!) - and where are the exclamations "stupid Germans!" and "tomorrow Germany will fall apart!"?
 

Stiven

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I personally have no doubt the Russians can make whatever they put their minds to but like everywhere else there will be teething problems to deal with.
You can believe.
This is your undeniable and inalienable right.
But the reality of this will not change.
“Buy or steal” is not just words.
For all the known history, this is not even 9 out of 10, this is 99 out of 100 cases. At least in everything regarding technology and technology.
Starting from the rifle of 1891 onwards.
 

Stiven

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
These are the same "Mangoes" that were developed in 1988?
Which production was stopped back in 1993?
And in 2016 they were taken out of stock and painted at the Leningrad plant of Karl Liebnecht with new paint for sale in Pakistan?

Of course, this is an ultramodern high-tech ammunition. LOL
For reference, now this factory makes ...
... water fittings for urban park systems. And not the best quality ...

Awesome photo.
Here is a better one. ;-)


And the new engine is also cool. Interestingly, but there is enough space for two thousand gnomes? Well, at least they won't make a fire during the parade. LOL
Today, produce a Mango-M.
View attachment 629524
Maybe, you need a photos with Russian military plants, with new Russian ammunition, guns? Or, you need a Russian documents about make a new ammunition? Are you seriously?
About engine... What's so funny? Reportedly, a stop at the parade rehearsal was planned. I do not know if this can be believed, but, even if it was really a breakdown, does that mean the tank is bad? Let me remind you that almost all complex equipment at the beginning of their "career" breaks down. If the Russians made a new engine and it breaks down, "stupid Russians", "tomorrow Russia will fall apart" scream around. If Elon Musk made a rocket that exploded, pseudo-bulletproof glass that damaged with a steel ball, "Well, you understand... These are only prototypes...". But, why? Following your logic, the Germans cannot produce tanks and guns at all - the Germans themselves write that a lot of equipment in the army is inoperative. "We have only 20 operational helicopters out of 152" - from "Bild". 13% (!) - and where are the exclamations "stupid Germans!" and "tomorrow Germany will fall apart!"?
Ho-ho!
Familiar rhetoric.
Again the old pics of some experienced crafts of unknown origin.

Was it really impossible to draw something more convincing? Like the next cartoon about a supersonic rocket launched from Mars with an unpredictable trajectory?
Be that as it may, it does not change anything.
In the troops of these shells no one even saw in a dream. A dozen, or even a hundred, experimental samples, are empty.
Not to mention the fact that even if such shells exist, neither the engine, nor electronics, nor the rest of the tank will appear from this.
These pieces of iron are only suitable for distributing to collective farmers in bast shoes, so that they would hit their commanders on the head.
 

Iron Felix

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
206
Reaction score
406
I personally have no doubt the Russians can make whatever they put their minds to but like everywhere else there will be teething problems to deal with.
You can believe.
This is your undeniable and inalienable right.
But the reality of this will not change.
“Buy or steal” is not just words.
For all the known history, this is not even 9 out of 10, this is 99 out of 100 cases. At least in everything regarding technology and technology.
Starting from the rifle of 1891 onwards.
M1891? Rifle, created by Mosin, Nagant, Veltishchev, Rogovtstev and a few more Russian engineers. From Nagant, in this rifle - few details. Yes, in M1891 and M1891/1910 used a Nagant clips, but, in M1891/1930 used a Mosin clips, constructed in 1890-1891. And, for you, if I understood correctly, "buy or steal a gun" - is a terrible, yes? Ok. But, EVERYONE bought or stole other people's technologies. Germans used a MG.08, it's a Maxim gun, like a Russian M1910. In WW1 used a copies of French engines, motorcycles. In 1940, the Germans gained access to the French archives. Do you think, the French didn't work on cruise missiles, HEAT shells? Maybe, ballistic missile invented by Wernher von Braun? Maybe, assault rifle invented by Hugo Schmeisser?
Take a look at this photo:
Hotchkiss.jpg
German soldiers with Hotchkiss machine gun. French machine gun, created by American Benjamin Hotchkiss, based on Austro-Hungarian experimental Odkolek machine gun, suggested for Russia at 1890 (and, Russians signed a contract with Odkolek, for works at this machine gun on Sestroretsk plant). But, "Odkolek" - is a Czech surname, not a Austrian and not a Hungarian. And, Hotchkiss MG, it's a German, American, French, Austrian, Hungarian, Czech or Russian machine gun?
Well... Maybe, antibiotics invented by Alexander Fleming? Maybe, general relativity invented by Albert Einstein? You seem to live in a world where only Russians steal and buy, and steal and buy everything. Maybe please us with a story about the StG-47? Standart weapon in Soviet Army in 1949-1959, constructed by Hugo Schmeisser... "Russians didn't know about intermediate cartridge, gas-operated systems, boxed magazines! Stupid Kalashnikov wasn't a creator of AK!" - I'm waiting for it.
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
332
OK, I have come to the conclusion that it is a very bad idea to feed Trolls. It is not worth the hassle. Stay well folks and try not to be drawn into pointless and circular discussion.
 
Top