Armata soon to be in service.

[Kieme(ITA)]

This picture shows a comparison between the arcs of sensors (supposing 120°) and the direct launcher tubes' facing.

 

(There seems to be a dud with a couple of them intersecating, but this could be due to a bad drawing more than anything else... even though that front tube seems to be pointing a bit more outwards than the one on the other side)

 

 

With the picture above could be a bit easier to understand the radious of the weapons of this APS. I mean the radious that each munition can cover. There must be some, at it must be at least as large to cover the dead space in between the weapon tubes.

The widest area between two tubes seems to be the back 2/3rds. Between the last side tube and the first read one. But in the end, it all depends on the range of the weapons, that is the distance between the tube and where the weapon detonates in order to intercept the incoming projectile. If we knew such number we could estimate a minimum number for the width of the weapon's range, and vice-versa.

It is interesting to note that the direction of one of the left side tubes is almost identical to extreme range of the 120° radius of the left sensor.

 

This is how it would look like if the tube-launched weapons had a 1m detonation range (1m after leaving the tube) and a 30° cone of coverage. There would be a gap, even if the drawing is not accurate the gab seems too large. So the weapons must have a cone of coverage larger than 30° each. 

Same picture, with 60° cones.

Almost there, maybe we can consider some errors within the drawing, so a 60° cone would cover the entire vehicle if the munitions would explode 1m after the launch.

If we ditch the 1m assumption and start supposing the munition would explode at a larger distance then we could reach the extreme range of efficiency of a coverage having these data as assumpted (x meters -range of detonation, 60° efficiency cone of the detonation)

Edited May 29, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[agusto]

Oh yes, the only reason why I am spending my time typing this stuff is to be intentionally irritating to you.  It's all I live for, actually. (sigh)

 

I have always known you are a PsyOps specialist on the CIAs payroll, now you finally admit it!

 

I will immediately notify John Kettler.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Almost there, maybe we can consider some errors within the drawing, so a 60° cone would cover the entire vehicle if the munitions would explode 1m after the launch.

If we ditch the 1m assumption and start supposing the munition would explode at a larger distance then we could reach the extreme range of efficiency of a coverage having these data as assumpted (x meters -range of detonation, 60° efficiency cone of the detonation)

 

APS patent said that "vertex angle of the shaped charge cone should be 120-160 degrees". I might be using wrong terms here, so here's the original statement in Russian:

 

угол раствора кумулятивной воронки целесообразно выбирать из диапазона 120-160 градусов

[Chudacabra]

 

 

 

 

This looks like the cover of a 1970s Penguin book about psychedelics. Well done!

[Kieme(ITA)]

APS patent said that "vertex angle of the shaped charge cone should be 120-160 degrees". I might be using wrong terms here, so here's the original statement in Russian:

 

 

Well, on the left side it's what it would look like (considering a 1m activation) with 120° explosion cone, I wonder if there was the need for so many charges at various angles.. if the cone of each one was meant to be so wide.

Maybe the tube launches a very big tube-shaped explosive charge that covers 360° on the vertical plane (and it would be consistent with a 160, almost 180° area of effect on the horizontal plane). 

Looking at the picture again seems that 1m is too short, because it would hit part of the vehicle. At least 4/5m would be needed in order to ensure the explosion does not invest directly the hull:

 

I don't know the precise angle of approach of most top-hitting weapons, such a Javelin. But even 120° appears capable of hitting top-attack weapons:

 

 

The only problem I see is that if such munition wants to be efficient against top-attack weapons, and at the same time launch itself horizontally (as the tubes suggest) I see it's needed to explode very shortly after leaving the tube, otherwise the overhead of the vehicle would just be exposed...

 

This is what never convinced me about the capability of this new russian system to cope with top-attack weapons. The launching/housing tubes of the countermeasures are horizontally mounted, so even an extreme angle of explosion would be not really suited to cover the top of the vehicle...

 

Moreover, about the cone of action/efficiency of the APS munition. Sure it's shape (a cylinder) suggests a 360° capacity, but a very wide cone of action will disperse the efficiency more than a strict cone would do. The tubes are quite large indeed, and maybe there's enough propeller and material to cover such a wide cone, but I wonder if the munition is capable of really saturate such space in a 100% secure manner.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Such amount of munitions is needed to endure more than one hit per sector. 3-5 meter offset seems about right.

 

But don't forget that munitions are most likely steerable. At least in the patent. But I'm not sure if it applies to Kurg. Previously I thought it can't look above with radars, but the photo that shows elevated/sliced sensors made me rethink that. Now I'm not so sure. It definitely can't go for 90 degrees above, but directly approaching overhead rounds - probably.

Edited May 29, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Kieme(ITA)]

If this reference is right:

http://www.wearethemighty.com/javelin-anti-aircraft-missile-2015-02

 

The Javelin approaches the target more or less with a 45° angle.

 

 

This is the outcome:

-on the left the APS munition explodes right after leaving the tube. It's possible, but it will hit directly the hull of the vehicle and cause damage for sure, to the launcher tube, the nearby ones etc... but the angle is capable of intercepting a javelin directed to the middle of the vehicle.

 

-on the right the munition explodes about 3 meters after leaving the tube, it won't harm the vehicle in any way so it's safe. But it won't be able to intercept the javelin. We could imagine a larger cone of effect, but this cone would need to be very very large to get the javelin... and considering it's shaped like a cone (if not a cylinder), let's say a cone, it will need to fill an amount of cubic meters of air (space) that seems unlikely.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Hmm. Looking back at my previous collage and your picture made me thinking. Small sensors on Kurg (Afghanit light) and smaller sensors on T-14/T-15 (part of Afghanit heavy) are different in that on Kurg they are sliced upwards (and may potentially cover that 45 degree approach). On Afghanit heavy, smaller sensors cover horizon-level, and overhead half-sphere is covered by bigger radar plates exclusively. So Afghanit light may be limited to ~45 degrees upwards in terms of radar coverage, while heavy can go even higher. Munition size difference suggest higher energy/speed potential, so I'd say that light is against RPGs and ATGMs, and heavy is against tank rounds. If Light can cover up to 45 degrees, then it must have steerable munitions too, like heavy.

[Kieme(ITA)]

But if a munition is steerable it must have less space/weight/size to accomodate explosive and material to counter the incoming projectile (to be steerable there must be some mechanism plus some propeller to steer it)... So steerable + 120/160 cover arc (like they mention), seems quite of a stretch for that tube. It's not small, but not very large either.

[akd]

APS patent said that "vertex angle of the shaped charge cone should be 120-160 degrees". I might be using wrong terms here, so here's the original statement in Russian:

 

That is almost certainly describing the angle of the shaped charged liner, and 120-160 degrees is going to result in an EFP.  I don't see any reason to think that the APS relies on a blast or fragmentation charge detonating at or near the vehicle and affecting a wide cone.  A fragmentation charge that simply sprays shrapnel in a cone would be fairly inefficient and and huge step backwards in potential collateral damage.  It would also have zero potential to defeat a kinetic projectile.  An aimed EFP would reduce collateral compared to a blast/fragmention warhead and would have the potential to hit a kinetic penetrator with enough force to at least affect its stability.

 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

But if a munition is steerable it must have less space/weight/size to accomodate explosive and material to counter the incoming projectile (to be steerable there must be some mechanism plus some propeller to steer it)... So steerable + 120/160 cover arc (like they mention), seems quite of a stretch for that tube. It's not small, but not very large either.

 

You've seen what Quick Kill does, right? 90 degree angle change is possible for a steerable munition. For RPGs and ATGMs, smaller munition should be enough. For tank rounds, Afghanit heavy has much bigger munitions. But tank rounds won't require 90 degree angle change, cuz they're already in horizontal position.

 

That is almost certainly describing the angle of the shaped charged liner, and 120-160 degrees is going to result in an EFP.  I don't see any reason to think that the APS relies on a blast or fragmentation charge detonating at or near the vehicle and affecting a wide cone.  A fragmentation charge that simply sprays shrapnel in a cone would be fairly inefficient and and huge step backwards in potential collateral damage.  It would also have zero potential to defeat a kinetic projectile.  An aimed EFP would reduce collateral compared to a blast/fragmention warhead and would have the potential to hit a kinetic penetrator with enough force to at least affect its stability.

 

Yeah, this is why the word "воронка" has been used, EFP it is.

Edited May 29, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[John Kettler]

According to Russia Beyond The Headlines. Putin has ordered that all of the new AFV types shown in the May 9th Victory Parade should complete acceptance trials ASAP and enter serial production.  Although the article gave no timetable in which the trials had to be completed, everyone involved is now on notice to get cracking. While this theoretically accelerates IOC for the T-14 Armata MBT, this may not be a good thing if corners are shaved and data fudged to get things done quickly. As I've pointedly shown, even the US is prey to such defense procurement insanity and illegality.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Yeah, we've already talked about it briefly. Honestly, previous plan for field trials and feedback/correction cycle to take 3-4 years (2016-2019/2020) was kinda too much IMO. Especially knowing how fast electronics age in our time. New field trials time-frame is "at least a year", which should still be enough. Rushing stuff due to being ordered to would indeed be catastrophic, however, I hope they understand that. Good thing is that most of the stuff is modular and common, like IFV turrets or chassis. Operating T-15, Kurg-25 IFV and Boomerang weapons should be identical, just as operating Kurg IFV or APC chassis, thus there'd be a lot of testing overlap, which is a good thing.

 

T-14s/T-15s being moved somewhere by rail:

 

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1164&p=10#p562676

Edited May 29, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Surely this will all happen because it must happen and work this way.

 

On a loop.  With occasional photos.

 

That's pretty much this thread for the last twenty pages or so.

[Battlefront.com]

Which why I was focusing my criticism on the process, not the product. Oh well, I've given up. I'm finding trying to second guess the APS' actual abilities far more interesting.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

That is almost certainly describing the angle of the shaped charged liner, and 120-160 degrees is going to result in an EFP.  I don't see any reason to think that the APS relies on a blast or fragmentation charge detonating at or near the vehicle and affecting a wide cone.  A fragmentation charge that simply sprays shrapnel in a cone would be fairly inefficient and and huge step backwards in potential collateral damage.  It would also have zero potential to defeat a kinetic projectile.  An aimed EFP would reduce collateral compared to a blast/fragmention warhead and would have the potential to hit a kinetic penetrator with enough force to at least affect its stability.

 

Ages ago someone asked the question if defeating a vertical threat was substantially harder than a horizontal one. The short answer I gave was basically "yeah, by a lot". Kieme(ITA) is tackling the sensor side of things, but your comments touch on a couple more.

For an APS to be successful it has to do four things pretty much spot on for a vertical intercept to work:

1. Detection in a "dome" rather than a "donut" shape.

2. Correctly assess and compute optimal intercept solution given conditions (vehicle position, munition placement, etc.)

3. Correctly place the munition in the optimal intercept location at the optimal time

4. Have a munition that can accomplish reliably and with acceptable collateral damage potential

If any one of these things goes wrong, either in function or execution, then the top attack defense will fail. But more importantly, if #1 has coverage gaps then it doesn't matter how well #2, 3, or 4 work because you can not intercept what you can't detect. So if the sensors appear to be insufficient to form a dome, then that raises a bunch of questions about the APS' likely impact on vehicle protection.

For you hardware nerds out there, I have a question. What is Russia's state of fielding active phased array radar systems (which is what I assume they are proposing using)? What's the smallest system they have? Just wondering where they started as a baseline.

Steve

[Kieme(ITA)]

Some pictures to appreciate the evolution in terms of shape, size and fitting from the oldest Drozd (late '70s) to the modern one seen in recent vehicles:

 

Drozd:

 

http://military.tomsk.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=18891&mode=view

 

http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://military.tomsk.ru/forum/download/file.php%253Fid%253D18887%2526mode%253Dview&imgrefurl=http://armorama.com/modules.php?op%3Dmodload%26name%3DSquawkBox%26file%3Dindex%26req%3Dviewtopic%26topic_id%3D182442%26page%3D1&h=1296&w=1728&tbnid=_PMbOZjAmTfnPM:&zoom=1&docid=YvKJPB5NM1TH1M&itg=1&ei=0mhpVdz3HcHB7Abk8YDICg&tbm=isch&ved=0CFYQMygsMCw

 

Afganit:

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEMdl-UW0AA0iWl.jpg

 

http://sg.uploads.ru/t/M2Y8G.jpg

 

 

The Afganit launchers seem close in terms of shape and dymensions, maybe they are even a bit larger than the Drozd's. But the big step was done on the sensor system. First of all there's no need for an external electronic brain (such it was fitted on the T-55) because the Afganit was intended for use on the new vehicles, therefore such complex is stored inside the vehicle. The sensor themselves are surely much smaller than the original Drozd ones, I'd dare to say 30% the size, and the concept evolved as to use several small sensor boxes placed all around the vehicle for a full coverage. Finally, there's also the evolution on the smoke dischargers, from the fixed to the mobile ones.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[L0ckAndL0ad]

30%? Volume of latest Arena equipment stored inside the turret is 2dm^3. As for similarities, Obj 195 seems the closest.

 

In terms of hardware and calculations, terminal guidance (straight line) intercept solution for the top-attack (or ~45 degrees for Jav, if what wiki says is true) should be more or less straightforward, cuz ATGM speed is not really fast. In terms of detection, it should even be less problematic due to absence of ground-level background noise in the air (the stuff that ground radars have to filter through). In terms of interception, I've already gave my thoughts on mechanics. Pyro squibs or something that can burn really really fast is a way to go, using atmospheric missile flight dynamics.

 

What I find most problematic is the latency problem for tank rounds interception. Latest Arena can do up to 1000m/s projectiles. Modern tank rounds can go, what, up to 2km/s or even higher? Detecting, calculating and intercepting this kind of stuff should be much, much problematic than figuring out top-attacks. Latency problem will dramatically influence any possible calculation errors.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

 

Somewhere, probably in this or the other Armata thread, I reported discovering, while researching another Russian radar, that the manufacturer's site also had a radar specifically designed to provide overhead detection coverage for a tank. Unfortunately, I can't recall either the manufacturer's name or the radar, and haven't found that post in spite of having done a fair amount of digging on CMBS and on Google in an effort to find what I turned up some time ago. I am absolutely certain I saw such a product described. Perhaps someone with better Google fu than I am able to muster now can find it? A worthwhile read if that happens!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

What I find most problematic is the latency problem for tank rounds interception. Latest Arena can do up to 1000m/s projectiles. Modern tank rounds can go, what, up to 2km/s or even higher? Detecting, calculating and intercepting this kind of stuff should be much, much problematic than figuring out top-attacks. Latency problem will dramatically influence any possible calculation errors.

DM-53/L55 muzzle velocity is estimated at 1750m/s.

[Nerdwing]

Yeah, the kinetic penetrator interception just seems out of line with the current capabilities of most systems IMO

[L0ckAndL0ad]

[akd]

 

 

 

Looks like there is a hatch on either side that would allow reloading of the forward rotating launchers from inside the vehicle.

[Battlefront.com]

30%? Volume of latest Arena equipment stored inside the turret is 2dm^3. As for similarities, Obj 195 seems the closest.

 

In terms of hardware and calculations, terminal guidance (straight line) intercept solution for the top-attack (or ~45 degrees for Jav, if what wiki says is true) should be more or less straightforward, cuz ATGM speed is not really fast. In terms of detection, it should even be less problematic due to absence of ground-level background noise in the air (the stuff that ground radars have to filter through). In terms of interception, I've already gave my thoughts on mechanics. Pyro squibs or something that can burn really really fast is a way to go, using atmospheric missile flight dynamics.

Again, the target missile has to be within sensor coverage, has to be identified as a threat specific to that vehicle, then a solution has to be computed, correct counter measure detonated in an optional position/orientation at the optimal time, and far enough away to not cause the vehicle residual damage. If that were either easy or straight forward then it would have been done years ago. So obviously it isn't. Therefore, the question is if Russia has figured all this stuff out in a way that is both reliable and affordable. There is not enough information to determine this.

 

What I find most problematic is the latency problem for tank rounds interception. Latest Arena can do up to 1000m/s projectiles. Modern tank rounds can go, what, up to 2km/s or even higher? Detecting, calculating and intercepting this kind of stuff should be much, much problematic than figuring out top-attacks. Latency problem will dramatically influence any possible calculation errors.

Besides the obvious "yeah, this seems to be a problem", there's another thing to consider.

When a horizontal threat is incoming the sensors have less area to scan and can, safely, rule out threats. For example, if the incoming round is 10m above the vehicle it might not even register as a threat for all I know. If it is on the correct plane then it has to determine the vector, which takes time before there's enough data. This is a problem with a fast moving object because time is a big variable (i.e. closer the shooter is, the less time is available)as well as a natural enemy for a bunch of mechanical responses (i.e. the counter measure).

A top attack threat involves a lot less opportunity to safely rule out threats. To a column of tanks, for example, an incoming Javelin round will likely register as a potential threat to more than one for a decent part of the Javelin's flight path. This likely means for a while the APS is gathering data without being able to come to a solid conclusion until (at least) the missile starts its downward path:

It is unclear what the speed of a Javelin is at various parts of its flight path, but it seems around 300m/s is probably ballpark for the "terminal" portion. According to the above chart, for a 2000m attack there is about 2-3 seconds from the start of the terminal portion until impact. That means the APS has about 1-2 seconds to do everything necessary to defeat the incoming Javelin.

It could possibly buy itself more time by computing a hypothetical solution to potential threats prior to the terminal portion of the attack. This could, in theory, speed up the time to determine if the attack is a threat or not by predicting where the missile would have to start diving to be a threat and then react accordingly only if it does.

Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible to defeat a top attack, rather I'm simply pointing out how difficult it is. Especially compared to a horizontal attack.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

In terms of coding, I don't see anything hard (I'm an amateur coder since 10, with an unfinished Systems Engineering degree). The vehicle is represented by a hit-box. Think - collision mesh, but intentionally made bigger upwards and sideways, to account for direct-approaching-overhead-exploding ATGMs. Previous Russian APS radars were searching within a small radius around the vehicle, like 50 meters. Terminal fly-path of an ATGM (even Jav) at distance of 50 meters is directly homing onto the target vehicle. Upon reaching detection range, APS computer will run extrapolation/prediction of where the target is going to go, what size it is, what speed it is, and if predicted fly-path will cross its hit-box (collision mesh). When in motion, and in a column, vehicles have to use intervals of safe distance between each other (say, 2-4x times bigger than the size of vehicle's hit-box).

 

So, again, latency, IMO, is the most serious problem. 300 m/s vs 2000 m/s, within 50 meter radius, is 0.16(6)s and 0.025s of travel time respectively. To compare, 1000m/s =  0.05s of travel time, a maximum for latest Arena. Increase of detection range is a must, if going for tank rounds. Same 0.05s that Arena can do, but for 2000m/s, can be achieved by increasing detection range twice, to 100 meters.

Edited June 1, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad