Armata soon to be in service.

[Vanir Ausf B]

 I think as the game is set in 2017 and you wouldn't expect to see Armatas fielded till closer to 2020, the US has close five years to put an AESA detector on a squad level UAV. I'd say that is easily doable.

I am curious as to what basis you have for that assertion. The smallest "AESA detector" (which is actually called a Tactical SIGINT Payload or Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload) weighs 11kg. A Raven UAV weighs 2kg soaking wet. (some ASIPs weigh near 500kg, with capability roughly scaling with weight).

To the best of my knowledge the only UAV in the US inventory that carries a SIGINT pod is the MQ-1C Gray Eagle. The RQ-4 Global Hawk can also carry one but presently does not. The RQ-7 Shadow should able to carry one judging from it's specs, but these are all much larger aircraft than a Raven.

[c3k]

Well.... a Sigint package is different than a one-off freq detector. There's a big difference between a wide-spectrum, geo-location, record-and-store-and forward, scanner and a little battery powered fuzz-buster. Think a cigarette box sized highway radar detector, but tuned for the Armata spectrum. Of course, sensitivity would need to be jacked up, etc.

By the time it "beeps", the Armata could probably see you.

I still think a homing warhead on 120/155 shells would be the way to go. Emit? You get detected by high-level systems, the targeting coordinates get sent to a FDC, and shells are enroute.

 

 

[Kinophile]

So essentially an AFV fired ARM. 

[Battlefront.com]

Well.... a Sigint package is different than a one-off freq detector. There's a big difference between a wide-spectrum, geo-location, record-and-store-and forward, scanner and a little battery powered fuzz-buster. Think a cigarette box sized highway radar detector, but tuned for the Armata spectrum. Of course, sensitivity would need to be jacked up, etc.

Yeah, what he said   There is a lot of flexibility if the only purpose of the device is detection.  The dashboard radar detector is an excellent example.  I had one back in the 1980s and technology was primitive compared to now, yet it was extremely small and light weight.  While there would be all kinds of limitations with an Armata detecting device, I'm fairly certain that a fairly compact unit with basic direction and distance feedback could be made pretty easily.

By the time it "beeps", the Armata could probably see you.

For the target that the Armata activated its radar for?  Probably.  However, that's not really the intended purpose.  Think Blue Force Tracker.  An Armata turns on its radar to lock in on a specific Abrams.  By doing so it has not only alerted that Abrams (perhaps too late), but it has also alerted all of his buddies.  Including the guys back in fire control positions who might have radar homing warheads on 120mm or 155mm shells.  Which means all AT assets in the neighborhood know there's an Armata in the area, which can't be good for the health of the Armatas in question.  And if you are in the area without an AT asset, then you know to be a bit more cautious when moving about.

Bottom line here is that for an Armata with an active radar signature to be effective, it has to be able to shield that signature from enemy detection.  I'm with Peter on this... I don't think it can be done.  Which further indicates that the Armata is better suited to plinking old Soviet era hardware leftovers rather than taking on anybody armed with NATO type equipment.

Steve

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

Nice video walkthrough of the Armata turret: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLbQP_mlhVE

[c3k]

Err, the radar is a mmw defensive system for the APS, not a targeting system like Khryzantema. As such, the APS emits a much lower power (or, it SHOULD!), than a search/ident/track/target setup. At a guess, I'd put it an order of 4 (10,000) lower req't. Depending on the sensitivity of the receiver (a function of aperture size), the power transmitted, interference from similar transmitters (like, all the other APS antennas on that tank and on the tanks around it; maybe up 80? emitters), the range for a countermeasure lockon would be tight. I'd guess.

Back of the envelope work: the APS is meant to detect penetrating rods about 100m out. (It could be further, but this is very rough.) A rod is only about 2cm in diameter. The radar has to hit the rod and bounce back to the receiver. So, if your aperture is the size of the rod, it should pick up the same signal as the APS antenna from 200m away. However, the APS antenna has to take into account the MUCH weaker return, not just the to-and-from distance. So, a 2cm aperture should pick up the signal at the same strength as the APS antenna at ~ 400m. (Giving a 1/2 power loss for reflecting energy off the rod. Oh, I know: it's MUCH worse.) If the aperture is 15.5cm (a 155mm homing shell), that's going to have over 6 times more energy hitting it, so 6x the distance. About 2400m. That's a big "come hit me" sign.

 

But, a friggin' APS seeker bolted to a 155's warhead, tossed into a "basket" over a platoon of Armatas would be sure to find one or two emitters. "Boom". That knocks out that Armata's emitters (4 emiters per tank for full azimuth APS coverage?). A few minutes of sweaty work by the 155s and no Armata would be eager to keep its APS turned on. Just a thought.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2015 by c3k

[John Kettler]

c3k,

For a 120 mm class weapon, I believe rod diameter would be 40 mm not 20 mm. This is based on a Richard Simpkin armor book I read quite some time ago in which he likens the impact force of such a penetrator as being equal to the impact of a fully loaded passenger bus at 45 km/h concentrated into a 40 mm diameter circle. That imprinted immediately in my brain. M829E4 is considerably wider than that to defeat Arena long rod breakage via shearing force impact. The Arena Wiki says the system engages targets within 50 m of the tank, with defensive munition detonation at 1.5 meters. Seems to me doing that wouldn't take much power, though bearing in mind the signal which arrives at the ESM receiver falls off at 1/R2, whereas the Arena radar attenuates at 1/R2. But the return signal not only attenuates at 1/R2 on the return leg, but is considerably reduced before that by the small RCS of the KE penetrator. Naturally, things change dramatically if you factor in Krizantema type radar for all WX surveillance and targeting, and such radar has, I believe, been reported by Russian media as being on the T-14, but it would be reasonable to expect that operating frequency would be picked so as to enable engagements to max effective range, yet not going much further. Where that might fall is shown on MMW atmospheric attenuation charts I've previously provided. Theoretically, this would still make it tough as a collection target, but a real evaluation would require detailed assessment of the signal characteristics, other signal degraders than just atmospherics, ESM receiver capabilities and the all-important DSP associated therewith.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 21, 2015 by John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Err, the radar is a mmw defensive system for the APS, not a targeting system like Khryzantema.

Ack!  Sorry, I misunderstood the use of "target" context.  That will teach me for skimming a thread late at night.

My point, however, still stands that there's a knock-on effect that comes with lots of senors being out there.  I toss a rock at an Armata and it defeats it with its APS, but in the process lets people with big boom sticks know where the Armata is.

 

Back of the envelope work: the APS is meant to detect penetrating rods about 100m out. (It could be further, but this is very rough.) A rod is only about 2cm in diameter. The radar has to hit the rod and bounce back to the receiver. So, if your aperture is the size of the rod, it should pick up the same signal as the APS antenna from 200m away. However, the APS antenna has to take into account the MUCH weaker return, not just the to-and-from distance. So, a 2cm aperture should pick up the signal at the same strength as the APS antenna at ~ 400m. (Giving a 1/2 power loss for reflecting energy off the rod. Oh, I know: it's MUCH worse.) If the aperture is 15.5cm (a 155mm homing shell), that's going to have over 6 times more energy hitting it, so 6x the distance. About 2400m. That's a big "come hit me" sign.

I don't know the math for radar energy, but what you say is totally accurate in that to detect something X distance away you have to wash that space with a lot of waves.  Those waves don't magically stop at 100m but continue on for a much longer distance.  The density of which depends on how tight a net you're trying to cast in the 100m range.  Because APS has to detect tiny things, that means super dense waves to ensure a ping.

Even if your math doesn't match up with the real life APS, the fact is that an Armata is going to have a radar emitting signature and it will be a lot further out than 100m.  Conceivably this could be detected by vehicle and possibly handheld devices.  What happens with the information gathered can go in many directions, but none of them are positive from the Armata's standpoint.

Oh, and while we're talking about potential Western countermeasures, has anybody mentioned the possibility of jamming the Armata's APS sensors?  For example, a "smart round" that interferes with the quality of APS radar reception by broadcasting fake return signals or is set to automatically deploy decoys at 110m distance?  Obviously no such weapon exists at the moment, but you can bet your bottom Dollar that there is some defense contract out there with a PowerPoint presentation that is proposing this very thing.

Steve

Edited October 22, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[sburke]

An Armata turns on its radar to lock in on a specific Abrams.  By doing so it has not only alerted that Abrams (perhaps too late), but it has also alerted all of his buddies.  Including the guys back in fire control positions who might have radar homing warheads on 120mm or 155mm shells.  Which means all AT assets in the neighborhood know there's an Armata in the area, which can't be good for the health of the Armatas in question.  And if you are in the area without an AT asset, then you know to be a bit more cautious when moving about.

Steve

Wait does that mean we are going back to CMx1 borg spotting? Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Vanir Ausf B]

A fuzzbuster could tell you an emitter is present and may even give a general bearing but I think you will need something more sophisticated for a coordinate. The best you could hope for is an area within a grid. This assumes a fixed frequency for the APS. It also assumes the local electronic environment is relatively clean. The Russians are big on EW.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as radar homing artillery shells, but I could be wrong.

In any event, wouldn't this work both ways? Black Sea assumes US vehicles will have Trophy APS or something similar which is also an active emitter.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Battlefront.com]

A fuzzbuster could tell you an emitter is present and may even give a general bearing but I think you will need something more sophisticated for a coordinate. The best you could hope for is an area within a grid. This assumes a fixed frequency for the APS. It also assumes the local electronic environment is relatively clean. The Russians are big on EW.

It assumes a lot of things   The point is that radar emissions offers the opportunity for detection and/or counter measure and/or targeting.  And yes, that would apply to Trophy as well.

As for EW, the problem is that measures leave a signature of some sort.  For example, Russians are constantly messing around with OSCE drones in Ukraine right now.  In theory something can detect the source of the jamming.  Given the way things are headed I bet there's another PowerPoint presentation pitching a product to do just that.

EW is the new frontier and just because the Russians have a bit of a headstart doesn't mean that the West can't catch up.  Especially given the fact that Armata isn't going to be produced in any significant numbers for years to come.  The US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan went from zero IED counter measures to the ability to disrupt a wide range of effective devices within a year or two AND having them deployed very quickly.  When the need is identified it can be dealt with.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as radar homing artillery shells, but I could be wrong.

My guess is someone has created and tested the concept, but there's no money (yet) for going beyond that.  Remember that the US has had the HARM for some 30+ years, but autonomous guided artillery is a fairly new thing.  Give it some time, my guess is radar seeking artillery will happen.  And even if it doesn't, a ground based HARM solution wouldn't be too difficult to muster I think.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

 My guess is someone has created and tested the concept, but there's no money (yet) for going beyond that. 

I have seen the capability mentioned as a possible upgraded to Copperhead but that seems to be dead in the water.

 

And even if it doesn't, a ground based HARM solution wouldn't be too difficult to muster I think.

Does that mean we get fuzz buster drones and HARM ground to ground missiles in the module?

[c3k]

Fuzz buster is for the platoon element to detect non-visible Armatae. Also as the basis for seeker to be used as a cheap guidance unit for warheads to home on the various Armatae.

grid coords would be provided to firing elements by dedicated Elint assets. All you'd need would be 1km accuracy with the Elint. Toss the homing shells up from your arty unit into the center of that grid and let them home in on the Armata on the way down.

 

yes...I hate thumb typing and autocorrect. 

[Battlefront.com]

I have seen the capability mentioned as a possible upgraded to Copperhead but that seems to be dead in the water.

 One consistent component of US reaction to war is an amazingly fast dusting off of things sitting on the shelf.  Think of how fast the MRAPs, for example, got into the field.  Obviously not practical for a conflict that would only last a few weeks or months, however now that Russia has deliberately repositioned itself as a threat to the West I'd be surprised if there weren't some secret squirrel projects underway that would be production ready on very short notice.

 

Does that mean we get fuzz buster drones and HARM ground to ground missiles in the module?

We'd have to first decide to put Armata in

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Fuzz buster is for the platoon element to detect non-visible Armatae. Also as the basis for seeker to be used as a cheap guidance unit for warheads to home on the various Armatae.

grid coords would be provided to firing elements by dedicated Elint assets. All you'd need would be 1km accuracy with the Elint. Toss the homing shells up from your arty unit into the center of that grid and let them home in on the Armata on the way down.

 

yes...I hate thumb typing and autocorrect. 

The most important thread of thought in this discussion is that for every new battlefield technology there is a counter technology waiting in the wings.  The West hasn't put a lot of effort into defeating APS because so far nobody has produced one that needs special handling.  The Western tank rounds and the preponderance of top attack missile technology isn't bothered by existing APS defenses even if the enemy has them (which traditionally they do not).  Likewise, Russia and China aren't fielding anti-APS solutions because they are expensive and largely unnecessary since the West doesn't employ APS on a large scale.  The irony is if Armata has an APS that is capable of significantly hindering either 120mm tank rounds or things like Javelin, then the West will divert resources into mitigating the effectiveness of Armata's APS.

Cold War history and the economic problems facing Russia both add up to this being an arms race it will lose.  Which gets back to my points in the very earliest posts on this thread... Armata isn't the über tank it is made out to be by its supporters.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Armata isn't the über tank it is made out to be by its supporters.

I would add-on to this that it is not only not the uber-tank, but that it is also not as certain as many of those supporters seem to believe.  An all Armata force, or a partial fielding in the near future both remain pretty distant milestones by most estimates.  

[Battlefront.com]

I would add-on to this that it is not only not the uber-tank, but that it is also not as certain as many of those supporters seem to believe.  An all Armata force, or a partial fielding in the near future both remain pretty distant milestones by most estimates.  

Yup.  Plenty of time to figure out and field counter measures. Which means Russia will not effectively change the balance of power vs. a NATO equipped force.  What it will do is push Russia closer to bankruptcy.  Those of you who are following the draft 2016 budget will see that happening already.  Massive cuts to everything other than military and internal security, no money to replenish the rapidly disappearing reserve funds, and no new investment in fixing all the ills of the Russian economy that made Russia so vulnerable to sanctions in the first place.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I recall years ago when Trophy first appeared in the press I joked about Scottie in the old Star Trek series warning Caption Kirk "We're detecting three Klingon warships off the port bow captain and they're closing fast!" Place a HF transmitter on a tank of any sort and you're begging for someone to come up with a locator/tracker. Of course if your adversary is too slow or too misguided or too technologically inept to field a locator/tracker then you might as well place a radio broadcast tower on your tank. Nobody's listening.

[BTR]

Arena APS consumes less than 1kW to operate, so assuming it will "light up" a wave strong enough to be ID'd and tracked from several hundreds of meters away in varied terrain is a little optimistic I think. In comparison a modern PESA type radar (Zhuk-MSF to be precise) consumes around 12kW. 

[c3k]

1 kW. Let's think about that. With a thermal imager, how far away can you spot a 100 watt light bulb? Yeah. That's part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If the APS is really putting out 1 kW (1,000 watts), that's enough radiated energy, even if only 50% of the consumed energy gets radiated, to be noticed MILES away.

The key would be tuning the receiver to the APS' frequency.

The WWII Soviets learned the hard way why emcon is so important. The US lagged behind the Soviets in this regard for some time. I cannot believe that Russia has forgotten those lessons...   APS is great. Really, it tips the balance away from ATGMs. However, the free radiative approach to sensing will lead to first order adversaries taking advantage of a self-powered, mobile, armored, homing beacon.

[BTR]

1kW isn't the output, but the power usage. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by BTR

[Codename Duchess]

Where do you think the majority of that energy will go? There will be electromagnetic emissions for sure. If a dashboard radar detector can detect an automatic door opener (like for a store) at 100 yards, then a military ELINT system will detect APS.

That said I don't think it's as much of an issue as thought. Russia presumably would keep it secured until contact is immediately imminent, or operate off of JSTARS or another airborne system would detect an armored column on the move anyway.

My personal experience is much more focused on airborne things than terrestrial affairs, but I have yet to see a way to hide a Battalion of tanks reliably in the digital age.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[BTR]

I would suppose the majority of that energy goes into the APS, but what the actual output is, I'm not sure. As I said before, as any emission it is detectable, just how reliably can you detect it in adverse terrain at a significant enough distance? More so, as you said, armor isn't exactly hide and sneak anyways and there are cheaper ways to detect meaningful formations. 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think making an ARM or using an APS emitter as a means of tracking enemy vehicles is not optimal for reasons discussed.  What likely would be more useful is a sort of "jam on lase" option, effectively using a directional emitter and the sort of frequencies gleaned from ELINT to drown out the APS effectively as the firing cycle is about to complete.  It would give the targeted vehicle a heads up for sure, but given the speed of emissions over the speed of a round it likely would give the same reaction time as a muzzle flash, or even the APS actually engaging.  The fact APS is reliant on giving off emissions ensures finding the frequencies that they operate on is largely a matter of time, or even pairing the "fuzzbuster" to find traffic coming off the targeted vehicle (again, direction antennas I imagine), then giving off a short pulse of jamming paired with the expected flight time of the round (or perhaps even cued in the case of missiles to drown out the APS just during the missile's final run in to target.

Either case the capabilities of the APS on the Armata are sounding very on par for conventional APS vs some majick sabot slayer.  

[Kinophile]

An ATGM team paired with an organic spotting/APS radiation seeking & jamming team (or device) would be very dangerous.