Armata soon to be in service.

[Peter Cairns]

As we are sort of now on the topic of the vulnerability of active defence, giving away your position I wondered if anyone knew if Parallax sights might be worth another look. Old style range finders used them, to lenses a set distance apart and when they are brought into focus by comparing the different angles and knowing the distance between them you can calculate the range.

Lasers do it more accurately and faster but as we all know from playing CMBS pretty much every combat vehicle carries a laser detector and a fair number effective countermeasures that can activate before the first shot is fired.

Modern Parallax might be two HD all spectrum cameras on either side of an M1 turret with a laser between them linked to a computer. It might not be as quick or accurate as Lasing your target but it wouldn't give away your position.

 

peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Out smart 'em with low tech!  I love it

Steve

[Kinophile]

This is actually a very good idea. Passive 3D view would give far superior understanding of the FoV and immediate locale. 

 

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

 

Not really low tech. Unlike the WW2 version where you manually lined up the two images from lenses a know distance apart ( about 5 ft...) and then read off the distance, it would be a computer that compared the images digitally and the laser between then estimating the base of your triangle to 100ths of a millimetre in a mater of seconds.

As detection and response get faster the ability to hit before they know your there gets more important.

From what I've seen there is a general movement with things like the SDB, to use imaging and GPS over lase designation. One of the big in game advantages the US has is the Javelin because until you here the whoosh when it launches you have no warning, but then it's usually too late!!!

I should also add for those that may think I have a downer on Russian kit, I think  the new unmanned turret with the full set of APS, gun, missile and sensors that doesn't intrude in the interior space and can be used across a range of vehicles is one of the smartest ideas I've seen in a long time.

Getting roughly the same set of weapons and sensors as a Bradley in a lower profile vehicle without the old soviet problem of the interior being too cramped is little short of inspired. Might lack a bit compared to the Bradley in terms of the quality of the sensors and weapons but compared to the BMP or BTR it goes a huge way to closing the gap!

Peter.

[c3k]

Using a laser rangefinder in an Abrams is usually followed by 1700m/s projectile obliterating the target. If the target "senses" the lase, well, it still goes boom: it just knows about it half a second in advance.

[Peter Cairns]

C3k,

iI wasn't aware that 120mm rounds maintained their velocity constantly, all other rounds decelerate, oh and nice to know that the computer on an M1 can do instantaneous calculations, load the gun and fire in half a second, including flight time!

I kind of suspect it's easier to make a system that pops smoke on detection, than one that calculates range and a firing solution quick enough to load fire and hit before it activates.

Peter.

[Lethaface]

C3k,

iI wasn't aware that 120mm rounds maintained their velocity constantly, all other rounds decelerate, oh and nice to know that the computer on an M1 can do instantaneous calculations, load the gun and fire in half a second, including flight time!

I kind of suspect it's easier to make a system that pops smoke on detection, than one that calculates range and a firing solution quick enough to load fire and hit before it activates.

Peter.

Well, smoke doesn't block a DU dart ;-P
Just had to make that point hehe, although I agree that laser designating will become more unfavorable the more countermeasures get developed. Passive range finding and or target designation has big benefits.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

iI wasn't aware that 120mm rounds maintained their velocity constantly, all other rounds decelerate, oh and nice to know that the computer on an M1 can do instantaneous calculations, load the gun and fire in half a second, including flight time!

I kind of suspect it's easier to make a system that pops smoke on detection, than one that calculates range and a firing solution quick enough to load fire and hit before it activates.

Sarcasm ignored:

The more pressing question is what the tank dumping the smoke going to do with the time between lase and shot?  While there's a few seconds (very few) in between laser strike and round strike.  This isn't a ATGM where you've got enough time for the commander to go through the mental process of being engaged and give orders to the driver.  The tank broadly is going to be about where it was when it was lased (especially true if stationary).

The smoke will deploy, but it isn't a force shield.  The automatic smoke system does a lot more against something with a flight time measured over 5-6 seconds though.

Re: Passive range finder

Very likely on the horizon somewhere.  I mean if you could build a computer program to recognize a tank type target and then scale the size of the image received vs the actual size of the tank you ought to be able to get enough for an accurate enough to shoot range.  

[sburke]

if they can do facial recognition this seems like a walk in the park.  I watch NCIS I know that they can tell where anybody has been in the US just by checking ATM camera feeds remotely...somehow.... 

 

Seriously though facial recognition is out there and that would seem to be harder to do than matching the size ratio of a known image that is much more fixed than human faces.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the critical question to ask about notification is does it lead to an effective counter measure.  Popping smoke when lazed does absolutely nothing for you if the lazing happens as part of being targeted by a solid shot.  The shot will hit or not hit before the crew or any current technology has the ability to change that outcome.

Combining the power of sensors, such as LRAS3, it shouldn't be too difficult to get near automated identification of enemy targets based on size, shape, and heat signature. 

There's already an upgrade in the works (in the field yet?) for LRAS3 to automatically identify friendly targets in order to avoid friendly fire incidents.  It is called the Target Validation System.  The ability to automatically distinguish friend from foe is two steps away from automatic targeting of enemy vehicles.

Combine this with LRAS3's ability to tag enemy targets and transmit the data to targeting systems for near absolute on target aiming and you have a targeting solution that is one step away from automatic targeting.  The one thing that's missing is a way to automatically detect an enemy target.  Anything that Armata does to give its position away will help complete that last step.

Imagine LRAS3 with TVS and a radar signature detector.  Armata turns on its radar, LRAS3 is automatically pointed in the general direction, it scans for targets, rules out friendly targets, focuses in on targets with characteristics consistent with Aramta (heat signature, size, etc.), determines a valid target, feeds the information to the weapons system, the system is aimed directly at the target, and awaits the decision of the commander to engage or not.  All the commander has to do is decide if he wants to kill what's been selected.  He doesn't have to find the target, just decide if he should fire.  In a hot environment that might take a second or two only.  In a less hot environment he might have to radio for more info or authorization, but keeping the lock on the Armata while waiting for a response.  Either way, the target is one muscle twitch away from being destroyed.

The US could probably develop this technology within the next 5-10 years even in the current environment of constrained funding.  It could probably do it in 1-2 years if a program was created with a large source of funding and the correct pressure to produce results.

Now, can someone tell me again how an active radar signature for the Armata is a good thing to have for the next 20+ years?

Steve

Edited November 13, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[Vanir Ausf B]

Now, can someone tell me again how an active radar signature for the Armata is a good thing to have for the next 20+ years?

Depends. What is the weapons system the commander has his twitchy finger on ?

Putting an APS on Armata is a no-brainer. The theoretical problem of radar giving away the tank's position has been vastly overblown in this thread. In fact it will make no practical difference. As has been pointed out, tanks are not particularly stealthy to begin with. The FLIR on the LRAS3 has an advertised maximum range of 15km which is far greater than any radar from the APS will be detectable from. Therefore the scenario you outlined is already a possibility with existing tech whether the Armata has APS or not.

[Battlefront.com]

Depends. What is the weapons system the commander has his twitchy finger on ?

Putting an APS on Armata is a no-brainer. The theoretical problem of radar giving away the tank's position has been vastly overblown in this thread. In fact it will make no practical difference. As has been pointed out, tanks are not particularly stealthy to begin with. The FLIR on the LRAS3 has an advertised maximum range of 15km which is far greater than any radar from the APS will be detectable from. Therefore the scenario you outlined is already a possibility with existing tech whether the Armata has APS or not.

If that were true, then the Russians should just pack it in now because the M1A2 SEP can never be surprised, and therefore never effectively engaged.  The US taxpayers, in turn, will be happy to know they have already purchased the perfect tank.  Ooooooorrrrrrr... there's a flaw in your thinking

The flaw in your thinking is that there's many factors at work on a battlefield and the Mk I Eyeball is still the primary means of all the fancy gizmos working.  In order for a tank commander to spot an Armata with LRAS3 he has to be looking in the right spot at exactly the right time.  That's absolutely not a guaranteed thing.

Think of it this way.  Remember the old US tanker training known as the "Sagger defense"?  This was when the tank commander visually saw a Sagger coming at his tank he could order the driver to take evasive maneuvers and greatly increase the chance of being hit.  However, this required seeing the Sagger coming and that was by no means a certainty.  It's one of the reasons laser warning systems were invented.

The counter measure I described means the tank commander could be sleeping and be woken up with an enemy tank already in his sights with all targeting data entered.  All he would have to do is pull the trigger.  You don't seem to understand why that would be a major improvement to a tank's lethality and ability to survive.  Either that or I don't.  Hopefully a tanker will come around to settle that

Heck, in theory the computer could make the decision itself and fire without any Human input at all.  Talk about a force multiplier!  But that's super scary and not something that's going to happen.  Yet.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I think your SAGGER story is a bit off. The tactic was based on detecting AT-3/Malyutka launch signature, not the missile in flight, a vastly tougher feat. Nor was the response just sudden jinking movements and such but putting immediate counterfire on the launch site. In the days of MCLOS, all it took was a moment's distraction to auger in the missile, which was precisely what the counterfire was designed to engender--a distracted operator, with WIA or KIA a bonus. The net result of such tactics was to greatly decrease (not increase) the chance of being hit.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[JonS]

As detection and response get faster the ability to hit before they know your there gets more important.

You're talking about layers 2-3 of the onion of defence

1) Don't be there

2) Don't be seen

3) Don't be acquired

4) Don't be targetted

5) Don't be hit

6) Don't be penetrated

7) Don't be killed

 

[JonS]

It is called the Target Validation System.  The ability to automatically distinguish friend from foe is two steps away from automatic targeting of enemy vehicles.

As long as the enemy doesn't get inside your OODA loop and start broadcasting the friendly IFF signature ... action/reaction is still a 'thing', and likely to be for quite some time. Besides, heck, even without adaptation by 'the badguys' the US can't currently accurately discriminate a target as large as a hospital - in a no-threat environment no less - so you might wanna give automatic targeting/engagement of things as small as tanks at least few years yet.

There's also the somewhat thorny problem of determining what the specific signature of the Armata, and the T-90, and the BMP-3, and the Ural-5353, and the 2S1, and the BM-27, and the 9K33 Osa, and the Type-96, and the Type-99, and the ...

 

even in the current environment of constrained funding

hehe. You really have no clue what those words mean

Edited November 14, 2015 by JonS

[Vanir Ausf B]

  That's absolutely not a guaranteed thing.

I don't see why not.  In this future warfare scenario our future version of the LRAS3 can be set to scan continuously without human interface. You should be able to program the AI to discern any high contrast areas, compare the image to a known database, reference Blue Force Tracker and Bob's your uncle.

Heck, in theory the computer could make the decision itself and fire without any Human input at all.  Talk about a force multiplier!  But that's super scary and not something that's going to happen.  Yet.

Steve

Exactly. Once you get to the point where the soldier's only job is to press a button you are really talking about drone warfare. While we do seem to be headed in that direction I maintain that for the near future an APS is a good thing to have on a tank. The US Army seems to think so too since it is developing Quick Kill which also uses an AESA radar.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Baneman]

...

Think of it this way.  Remember the old US tanker training known as the "Sagger defense"?  This was when the tank commander visually saw a Sagger coming at his tank he could order the driver to take evasive maneuvers and greatly increase the chance of being hit.  However, this required seeing the Sagger coming and that was by no means a certainty.  It's one of the reasons laser warning systems were invented.

...

I'm hoping this is a typo and you really meant "decrease"

( otherwise my understanding of tactics just went out the window  )

Edited November 14, 2015 by Baneman

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

 

I agree with most of what you say about advanced detection based on object recognition being the next step but you might be missing the end of "The Tyranny of the Platform"

When the Longbow Apache came in it was a revolution as it's combination of Microwave Radar  and communications meant the detecting Helicopter didn't need to be the firing one. That ironically made the the Apache both the best helicopter in the world but also redundant, because if the targeting helicopter deoesn't need to be the firing helicopter and the firing helicopter the targeting one, neither needs to be an Apache. 

You can target with a MALE UAV (Medium Altitude, Long Edurance) and fit the front end of a Hellfire on to a Himar MLRS. The Himar costs £2m, the MALE £8m replacing the £40m Apache. The Apache can stay airborne for 3 hrs and carry 16 rounds but then would take the best part of an hour to return to base and reload. The Hale can target for nearly 24hours and the Himar can fire six rounds every 10minutes.

 

The figures are rough but in essenes I think current technology suggest that although the M1 has years left and shouldn't be replaced the future isn't senior and weapon in a land based expensive heavy tank. It's multiple sensors on multiple expendable platforms feeding long range precision weapons that never see the enemy.

Unfortunately it could be that if it reflects warfare accurately Combat Mission 2030 could be a really boring game!

Edited November 14, 2015 by Peter Cairns
Missed word.

[Battlefront.com]

 

As long as the enemy doesn't get inside your OODA loop and start broadcasting the friendly IFF signature ... action/reaction is still a 'thing', and likely to be for quite some time. Besides, heck, even without adaptation by 'the badguys' the US can't currently accurately discriminate a target as large as a hospital - in a no-threat environment no less - so you might wanna give automatic targeting/engagement of things as small as tanks at least few years yet.

Oh, most definitely!  Though there is a pretty significant difference between bad intel/planning and bad tactical reactions.  In the case of the hospital bombing, the weaponry worked perfectly, it was the Humans that screwed up royally.  In fact, one of the arguments for taking Humans out of the loop is that Humans make a ton of mistakes which computers, theoretically, would not make.  Theoretically

 

There's also the somewhat thorny problem of determining what the specific signature of the Armata, and the T-90, and the BMP-3, and the Ural-5353, and the 2S1, and the BM-27, and the 9K33 Osa, and the Type-96, and the Type-99, and the ...

That's actually not very hard.  I'm pretty sure that data set already exists.  What is more difficult is to have reasonably identifications made under less-than-ideal situations, such as terrain partially obscuring a vehicle and still figuring out what it is.  But it's not an insurmountable task from a technical side.

 

hehe. You really have no clue what those words mean

Not sure I follow you.  My point is the R&D costs for the systems I described don't amount to much in terms of the total US military budget.  Full production of systems, on the other hand, might be.  Which means the R&D will likely continue no matter what, however putting that sort of product into the field might have to wait for changes in the budgetary winds.

 

I don't see why not.  In this future warfare scenario our future version of the LRAS3 can be set to scan continuously without human interface. You should be able to program the AI to discern any high contrast areas, compare the image to a known database, reference Blue Force Tracker and Bob's your uncle.

Exactly. Once you get to the point where the soldier's only job is to press a button you are really talking about drone warfare. While we do seem to be headed in that direction I maintain that for the near future an APS is a good thing to have on a tank. The US Army seems to think so too since it is developing Quick Kill which also uses an AESA radar.

That is my point exactly.  Peter ascribed the behavior of the hypothetical LRAS3 system I described to the current one.  My point is that capability does not currently exist, but could exist relatively easily.  One of the components that would greatly aid that move is a capability to recognize and locate Armata's active radar signature.  Peter's argument is that the radar detection capability isn't necessary because LRAS3 can currently do about the same thing.  But it can't.

The US military is pursuing active defenses because to not do so is idiocy.  Even beyond the usual Pentagon decision making idiocy   But note that the US military has *NOT* deployed such systems on its vehicles even though they have been available for many years already.  I'm not saying it is strictly because of the threat of emitting a radar signature, but I'd be a bit surprised if that wasn't on the list of concerns that keeps APS off of US vehicles for the time being.

I'm hoping this is a typo and you really meant "decrease"

( otherwise my understanding of tactics just went out the window  )

DOH!!!  Yes, huge typo

I agree with most of what you say about advanced detection based on object recognition being the next step but you might be missing the end of "The Tyranny of the Platform"

When the Longbow Apache came in it was a revolution as it's combination of Microwave Radar  and communications meant the detecting Helicopter didn't need to be the firing one. That ironically made the the Apache both the best helicopter in the world but also redundant, because if the targeting helicopter deoesn't need to be the firing helicopter and the firing helicopter the targeting one, neither needs to be an Apache. 

You can target with a MALE UAV (Medium Altitude, Long Edurance) and fit the front end of a Hellfire on to a Himar MLRS. The Himar costs £2m, the MALE £8m replacing the £40m Apache. The Apache can stay airborne for 3 hrs and carry 16 rounds but then would take the best part of an hour to return to base and reload. The Hale can target for nearly 24hours and the Himar can fire six rounds every 10minutes.

This is a separate argument than the one you were making and, in fact, it's what the Army planned on when it came up with the ill fated, and horribly expensive, FCS program.  As far as I know the goals which FCS was based are still active.  And that is in the near future the US will be able to field vast amounts of mobile firepower with a large degree of automation and remote control.  Until that time comes, however, there will be the usual counter measures developed and fielded.  The US military will not wait until 3030 to counter a threat that exists before then.  If for no other reason than the Military Industrial Complex never wasting an opportunity for quarterly profit boosts

Steve

Edited November 15, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[JonS]

Not sure I follow you.  My point is the R&D costs...

The US spends more on defence than the next seven or eight largest militaries. Combined. Using the phrase "constrained funding" and "US military" in the same sentence is wildly non-sensical

[Battlefront.com]

The US spends more on defence than the next seven or eight largest militaries. Combined. Using the phrase "constrained funding" and "US military" in the same sentence is wildly non-sensical

Heh... I thought that is what you meant.  It's probably nonsensical to someone whose entire economy is based on the sale of a tiny, but exceedingly delicious, fruit and tours of wooden movie props set into a hillside, but for a nation that can spend more than most nation's national economies on a blimp that gets away and has to be shot down there is nothing nonsensical about what I said at all.  Which is, of course, quite sad

Steve

Edited November 15, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[Peter Cairns]

JonS,

The constraint on US spending is that, even if is static, defence spending has to sustain, upgrade and innovate all at the same time. Across the US defence budget there are a sees of debates from the A10 to the Future Rotar Craft that feature choices between cutting existing numbers to free funding for upgrades or wether to upgrade current platforms and extend their service lives or stick with what they have and put resources into successor programmes.

Steve,

My own reading of the US deployment decisions on APS is based on my view of their choices above.

With choices to make and urgent operational requirements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the question probably was;

"Do we put our resources in to developing and deploying APS in case of a major conflict against a near peer opponent in the   next ten years or do we concentrate on countering the IED's killing our troops now"

I think dealing with IED's was the right choice!

Peter.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

I think it was more simple than that... "do we need APS for a low intensity conflict with an enemy that has minimal anti tank capability to defeat existing armored systems?".  The answer was a pretty obvious no.  Therefore, I don't think it was ever a choice between APS or measures to defeat IEDs.  The choice was more broadly "is there a better place to spend our money than APS right now", which definitely was a YES. 

Having said that, there are other reasons why APS hasn't been pushed into production beyond budget priorities.  I do not pretend to know exactly what they are, but I'm guessing one of them is concern that they might not be as effective as advertised.  For example, Trophy was apparently initially vulnerable to RPG-30 attacks.  They may have other concerns as well, such as detection.  Since an active radar system would be a new thing for a US vehicle, I think it would be rather myopic to not consider these things BEFORE investing in a massive program of producing and installing APS on US armor.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

 

Fair point. 

I've always taken the view that you "Prepare for the probable and adapt to the unexpected"

Rely on a combination of a good understanding of the capabilities of your potential opponent and having quality adaptable professional forces. One of the biggest mistakes politicians make ( and I say this as a low level politician) is to spread resources to thin by trying to address every possibility or to keep everyone happy.

People are loss averse so once we provide something it's difficult to cut it back and people then want something extra. So be it defence of medical aid for seniors it just keeps creeping up over time. We make the armed forces make the tough choices politicians won't and then politicians fight the hard choices that effect them,

And if it's not to political, no one on either list of potential future Presidents is going to change that, because not one is saying that you'll all have to suffer and get less!

Peter.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Peter Cairns
Double typed

[JonS]

JonS,

The constraint on US spending is that, even if is static, defence spending has to sustain, upgrade and innovate all at the same time. Across the US defence budget there are a series of debates from the A10 to the Future Rotar Craft that feature choices between cutting existing numbers to free funding for upgrades or whether to upgrade current platforms and extend their service lives or stick with what they have and put resources into successor programmes.

Sure, it's a tricky problem.

Now; explain to me how the US differs from any other nation, who all struggle with exactly the same issues, but have only a small fraction of the budget? The closest competitor is China, who spend less than a quarter of what the US does. The US could literally cut its defence budget in half and still be double what the Chinese can generate in terms of capability and development, every year. The advantage compounds, and has been for decades.

If you really need to save some money, here's some starters for 10:

* scrap the AC-130 programme, all of it. If it's safe enough to have a frigging transport plane tooling around doing donuts directly overhead ... you really don't need that fire power.

* Scrap the B-1s and either the B-52 fleet, or the B-2 fleet. You don't need three fleets of heavy bombers.

* Scrap the A-10s. All of them. Now. Yes, they're lovely, but they don't really add much in either conventional or unconventional settings that can't be done with an F16 or artillery. Yes, yes; mindset, support the troops, blah blah. That's a command problem, not an equipment issue.

* Cut the carrier fleet (incl carriers, their associated surface warfare screen, the support ships, and the embarked air wings) by 25%. That'll leave you with nine - three working up, three refitting, and three on operations (spread roughly as one in the Pacific, one Indian, and one Atlantic), with an ability to surge at least one of the three working up within weeks.

* Ditch one of the active service divisions (or its equivalent in brigades), and get out of Germany.

That should free up a good chunk of change.

Edited November 16, 2015 by JonS