Armata soon to be in service.

[Battlefront.com]

For sure. I think that making the autonomous reaction part of the APS makes more sense than the stated purpose. For the onboard computer the question of "is there an incoming missile at top-attack altitude, yes/no?" is easier to answer than "Is Boris really dead or did his heart rate monitor come loose again?"

Hehe.. the same thing was going through my mind when I heard about the proposed capability. As a sim designer, I can tell you I'd not have a fun time trying to design of debug such a system.

 

Agreed, but how important is meeting the 2019/2020 time frame anyways?

From a stubborn pride standpoint? Very. But from a practical standpoint? Not important at all. Which is why I think Russia will cut back on R&D spending and/or reduce the features wishlist to something that won't interfere with the timeline as much. However, it won't do anything drastic simply to stick with that timeframe.

When I looked at some Quick Kill stuff there were plenty of statements from the military, in front of Congress no less, saying the system would be deployable by 2009. It was a necessary statement at the time to keep funding for the program going. Therefore, important to state at the time but not necessarily important to stick to.

Now, in terms of practical issues surrounding Russian military capabilities... obviously the longer these programs take to develop the longer it is before they can be used to further Russian national interests. That should be important to the Russian state, but how much it is or isn't can't be known to us because we don't know what the Russian state intends to do with these things once they get them. I doubt they know either, other than they would rather have the capability and not use it than to find they need it and don't have it. In that sense, delay is not a good thing.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Do you understand?

 

Yeah. Here's my statement.

 

Russians are spending billions on the new vehicles. They've created a new APS for them (or even a combo of various soft and hard kill APS). There's no point to do that unless the new APS is better than previous versions (20 degrees vertical, 1000m/s for latest Arena setup), and unless new vehicles can do their job better than their predecessors. I also think that there's no point in creating a tank that can't "tank", and a whole new APS that can't deal with all modern anti-tank threats. Therefore the only logical explanation I can find is that the new APS is aimed to deal with top-down attacks and probably even tank rounds (at least heavy version). Because radars and some smokescreen launchers look upwards. Because it's possible to create steerable APS munitions. Because APS is all there is that can save T-14's turret from being trashed by a KE strike, or so it seems for many people. How successful are these new vehicles? How faulty their systems? I don't know. I don't even like some of them. But that's the logic that I see behind them. That's what I think they are aiming for, not how good they are.

 

If you can provide better logical explanations for these designs, I'm all ears. If you agree with my statement, then why do we still wasting time on this?

 

Is what already happening? Pressure building on the Russian state's ability to function effectively to meet the needs of its people? Absolutely. Non-defense spending projects curtailed/cancelled due to economic reality? Absolutely. Large segments of the population working without pay for months at a time instead of being laid off? Yup, that too.

 

I see a lot of concern about poor Russian working class people. How touching. Don't buy it, tho.

 

Potentially the collapse of the Russian government, as with the Soviet government before it for almost identical reasons. But shy of that, decreasing services and quality of life for the average Russian person compared to previous years. How exactly is up to the decisions of the Russian government so I can not predict the specifics.

 

Russian government is a giant ass, but "the collapse" because of the tanks and "almost identical reasons as Soviet Union"? A-ha-ha-ha-ha.

 

OK, you keep peppering me with questions. How about answering one for me? Here's a quote from the article I just linked to:

I'm curious to know what expertise you have, or can at lest cite, that refutes the knowledge of Russia's former Finance Minister regarding the sustainability of long term defense spending in excess of 4%. If you can not, then what do you think that means for the Russian state?

 

Decrease in other budget areas. Fine-tuning, unification, size decrease of existing nomenclature. Collapse of the whole country because of that? Budget cuts don't create coups. Will budget cuts in Ukraine create another coup? They're practically trashing social spending and salaries now, and are facing default. But this is not really the place to discuss this.

 

Then you are coloring my comments with your own bias. I am brining this up in this thread because it is directly relevant to the discussion we're having. If we were talking about a US program I would make similar arguments if they were applicable. I know you want to ignore the economics because it isn't as fun as talking about smoke dischargers, but in the end economics is far more important than the angle of an APS launch tube.

I'll say this again as clearly as I can... Russia can not afford 4%+ GDP spending on defense under current economic conditions during peace time. Very, very few nations can. The list of countries that are in the 4%+ range is extremely small:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Given this fact, and that the projections from Russia's own government sources indicate spending might account for 9% this year, I am very curious to hear why you think this is sustainable.

 

There were two official statements so far. One is that there would be ~100 vehicles per type for testing and mass production only after 2019-2020. Second is that they're increasing Ground Forces budget at expense of other Armed Forces branches budgets, and that Putin asks them to start mass production as soon as possible.

 

Is there anything that can change this situation dramatically in the nearest few years? At least not before 2018 (next presidential elections).

Edited May 22, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Baneman]

OK, you keep peppering me with questions. How about answering one for me? Here's a quote from the article I just linked to:

 

I'm curious to know what expertise you have, or can at lest cite, that refutes the knowledge of Russia's former Finance Minister regarding the sustainability of long term defense spending in excess of 4%. If you can not, then what do you think that means for the Russian state?

 

And this was in 2011 before the oil price tanked ...

[Thewood1]

Don't forget that the price of a number of marketable materials also dropped considerably...diamonds, gold, silver, etc.  The main sustenance for growth for Russia's economy in the short-term is weapon exports.  That might be as much a factor in all this discussion as anything.  That is why there has been so much concern over India possibly losing faith in the PAK T-50.

[c3k]

Remote control tanks: that leaves open the good ol' "insert a worm into the electronics and wait until you need it" scenario.

 

"Boris? Why are you turning your Armata towards my headquarters? Boris?"

 

 

Edited to add: amusing, to me, that smoke grenades are now called "soft kill" systems and are deemed "Active Protection System" sub-elements. LOL. Does that mean infantry squads engage in "soft kill" when they throw THEIR smoke?

 

Smoke is a defensive suite. APS is another defensive suite. Sure, integrate them with sensors, but calling it an "active 'soft kill'" system is very funny...to me.

Edited May 22, 2015 by c3k

[Stagler]

That video was in 2006. How many super sonic ATGM systems are in service today? Zero. So yeah, it's theoretically possible, and the US spent a huge bundle of money on proving it, but obviously there was at least one major drawback that prevents the system from being deployed.

 

 

Umm not quite. 9M123 Khrizantema is supersonic.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Stagler

[exsonic01]

My Quote is not working :/ anyway

"Because both you and the guy in the article were "just repeating what you thought the guy was saying" and "it's not like it's your own mf thought in the matter". "2300 Armata tanks" is a legendary statement by now, and it's wrong from the beginning, because it's a giant misunderstanding. The actual plan for ГПВ-2020 was to get 2300 new armored vehicles. That includes BTR-82A, upgraded T-72B3s, and even upgraded BTR-80->BTR-82AM."

Ok, now I know that the 2300 new vehicle mention was wrong, but still, that single statement cannot harm the credibility of the author's point on Russian economy.

"From what I've seen so far, people who scream "OMG Russian economy is crumbling!", just want to "see the bad guys fail" (a widespread psychological desire), and don't really want to look at the actual facts and numbers, which is imperative for doing an actual economical analysis."

Because their "so called scream" is so true and they are real, and economy is very related with defense spending. And I checked all numbers and facts from the references from original 'thediplomat' link. I think their analysis was proper and good. How do you just regard them as jsut scream? Because they are Western journals and Western news papers? OK. I feel like I'm talking to the wall, so I will stop this posting. It seems you don't want to accept and ignore all the evidences which works against Russian economy, and I feel tired of this.

"You don't know Russian, do you? I've read both the original report and CAST's statement about Putin's acceptance. It's nothing more than a PR attempt. The outcome of the Sochi meeting about procurement did fall in line with their report's suggestion and they did not want to miss such PR opportunity to come out and say, and I quote, "Therefore, we can state that Russian higher authorities have practically listened to our recommendations". Practically. They are commercial organization. Saying that Putin himself agrees with their suggestions/reports is a PR move. Doesn't mean their report is wrong, no, I do agree with it very much. Especially the part about plane and heli procurement."

I'm very poor at Russian so I rely on google translation, so maybe I'm wrong and I understand poorly. But I think CAST did some really good analysis. Maybe it is a coincidence that the CAST opinion works, but who knows?

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Umm not quite. 9M123 Khrizantema is supersonic.

 

Ouch. Them Russians! There's also Shturm (AT-6), Ataka (AT-9) and Vikhr (AT-16).

 

Because their "so called scream" is so true and they are real, and economy is very related with defense spending. And I checked all numbers and facts from the references from original 'thediplomat' link. I think their analysis was proper and good. How do you just regard them as jsut scream? Because they are Western journals and Western news papers? OK. I feel like I'm talking to the wall, so I will stop this posting. It seems you don't want to accept and ignore all the evidences which works against Russian economy, and I feel tired of this.

 

I do accept solid arguments and logic. Please refer back to my previous message addressed to Steve where (at the end) I point out two latest official statements re newgen vehicles and ask whether anything is going to change in that regard. I see no evidence to support the idea that they won't be able to pull off what they've officially stated (more or less, obviously). If you think they can't, please say why they can't. Specifically.

 

I'm very poor at Russian so I rely on google translation, so maybe I'm wrong and I understand poorly. But I think CAST did some really good analysis. Maybe it is a coincidence that the CAST opinion works, but who knows?

 

As I've said, I agree with their analysis, it was good. And I provided my personal translation of their statement. Word "practically" outlines it all. Let me give you an example. "I wanted Crimea to become a part of Russia again. Putin practically listened to my recommendations and annexed it".

Edited May 22, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah. Here's my statement.

 

Russians are spending billions on the new vehicles. They've created a new APS for them (or even a combo of various soft and hard kill APS). There's no point to do that unless the new APS is better than previous versions (20 degrees vertical, 1000m/s for latest Arena setup), and unless new vehicles can do their job better than their predecessors. I also think that there's no point in creating a tank that can't "tank", and a whole new APS that can't deal with all modern anti-tank threats. Therefore the only logical explanation I can find is that the new APS is aimed to deal with top-down attacks and probably even tank rounds (at least heavy version). Because radars and some smokescreen launchers look upwards. Because it's possible to create steerable APS munitions. Because APS is all there is that can save T-14's turret from being trashed by a KE strike, or so it seems for many people. How successful are these new vehicles? How faulty their systems? I don't know. I don't even like some of them. But that's the logic that I see behind them. That's what I think they are aiming for, not how good they are.

 

If you can provide better logical explanations for these designs, I'm all ears. If you agree with my statement, then why do we still wasting time on this?

Your statement is logical, therefore I do not dispute the logic of it. However, it is extremely speculative to the point of "wishful thinking" in my view. Your conclusion basically comes down to this:

"Russia absolutely needs a powerful APS, therefore it must build one. I believe it is capable of doing it."

Mine is:

"Russia absolutely needs a powerful APS, therefore it would like to build one. I do not believe it is capable of doing it."

I look at the evidence and see the most logical thing is that the new Russian APS is an improvement over the old one. The hard kill capability against horizontal threats is likely greatly improved over previous versions in the areas of coverage and operational capabilities. Things like faster response times, more assured destruction, wider range of things that can be defeated, etc. I also think it is likely that the new APS includes a brand new soft kill capability against vertical threats. Specifically, IR and normal spectrum blocking smoke. How well it works and how practical it is for Russia to produce are open ended questions.

Your position, on the other hand, is largely "faith based". It might come to pass that your position is the correct one, but a betting man would be unwise to put money on it.

 

I see a lot of concern about poor Russian working class people. How touching. Don't buy it, tho.

You are very good at dodging debates, and here is another prime example. You asked what evidence there is of the Russian budget being under pressure, so I listed off examples of what is actually happening today. I have not expressed any opinion on the health and well being of the Russian people in either direction. So instead of dealing with the direct answer to your direct question, you do a little dance to distract the audience. Not working on me, for sure.

 

Russian government is a giant ass, but "the collapse" because of the tanks and "almost identical reasons as Soviet Union"? A-ha-ha-ha-ha.

If you knew the history of your new country as well as I do, you'd not be laughing. However, you are apparently quite ignorant of both that and general trends in history, therefore it is easy for you to scoff at my comments.

Russia is not close to collapse, but that doesn't mean it's not headed in that direction. Or do you only acknowledge the chance of rain when you are already soaking wet instead of when the sky is cloudy and the air is damp?

 

 

Decrease in other budget areas. Fine-tuning, unification, size decrease of existing nomenclature. Collapse of the whole country because of that? Budget cuts don't create coups.

First, you neatly dodged my question. Unless you are arguing that the current Russian government can "pull a rabbit out of its hat" in economic terms. I cited current Russian government projections as evidence that Russia can not afford its current defense spending. I cited proven international and historical standards to judge the Russian projections by. I cited the former Russian leader of the great Russian economic turn around as saying the path is unaffordable. And then I asked you how you think all of this can be brushed aside with what amounts to:

"they'll find a way"

You may be right, but understand that your position is faith based and not rooted in anything tangible.

As for the impact of budget cuts on political power, your ignorance of history is showing through quite throughly. Budget cuts alone do not create changes in political power ("coup" is just one form of change, not the only), but rarely do changes in power happen without them. This is as true for Russia as it is for the United States. Coups are only necessary when the political system refuses to bend to the will of the people *and* the will of the people to force change is sufficiently strong. It is pretty close to a universal truth in history. No government is exempt from it. Yanukovych government certainly proved no exception, and neither did the Soviet Union.

 

Will budget cuts in Ukraine create another coup? They're practically trashing social spending and salaries now, and are facing default.

Is it possible? Absolutely. And you're correct that discussing this is off topic. How good of you to recognize that so that we can get back to what is on topic:

Russia can not afford its current path of military reforms under current and near future economic conditions without increasing political risks with the domestic population. Therefore, it's planned development of A/K/B is ALREADY running into problems. You seem to think the Russian government can ignore these problems or magically make them go away, I do not.

 

There were two official statements so far. One is that there would be ~100 vehicles per type for testing and mass production only after 2019-2020. Second is that they're increasing Ground Forces budget at expense of other Armed Forces branches budgets, and that Putin asks them to start mass production as soon as possible.

Incorrect. There is a third official statement which is what you are so conveniently ignoring... the Russian government's financial statements. One can not look at the first two without considering the third.

 

Is there anything that can change this situation dramatically in the nearest few years? At least not before 2018 (next presidential elections).

Untrue. Economics do not behave according to election cycles, as the last year of dramatic economic change has demonstrated. Current economic math shows that Russia hasn't enough money to keep the current budget afloat until 2018. Something "dramatic" will come from this reality, one way or another, before 2018. What that is can be debated, but something will result from this and it will be a major change.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Umm not quite. 9M123 Khrizantema is supersonic.

 

The difference is the LOSAT was capable of sufficient speed to be designed to function as a kinetic energy weapon.  It was a missile that traveled fast enough to bypass any APS or jamming systems of the day, and ignore ERA, that fit on a HMMWV.

 

The 9M123 on the other hand, is just a very fast conventional missile that's still subject to APS, ERA, and the like.

 

Re: APS

 

The rose colored glasses went out of style some years ago.  Need does not indicate capability.

 

Re: The economy stupid

 

It still boggles my mind.  The limiting factor to Russian military ambitions has been economic.  The Russian economy is doing poorly and the Russian government is cutting into stuff it shouldn't to maintain the semblance of functionality.  The fact this is occurring somehow magically doesn't apply because it's the Armata!  The Armata cannot fail because it's Comrade Armata!  The Armata could very well meet all standards and the like.  But it will be at the expense of something else, and Russia's running out of it's children's futures to burn.

[cool breeze]

I didn't read all of the last couple pages yet but a thought just occurred to me.  Maybe vertical launch APS isn't particularly hard sans miniaturization technology?  I mean USA and Russian have been making vertical launch missile interception for a long time now.....  They just need to make it 1/1000th or so the size right?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I didn't read all of the last couple pages yet but a thought just occurred to me.  Maybe vertical launch APS isn't particularly hard sans miniaturization technology?  I mean USA and Russian have been making vertical launch missile interception for a long time now.....  They just need to make it 1/1000th or so the size right?

 

It still needs to be big enough, or powerful enough to do a number on something going very fast, or trigger a missile.  There's a practical limit on that much.  Also given the sort of speeds and "smart" required for guided APS....you're starting to talk about 2040 type designs vs 2020

[Kieme(ITA)]

And the integration with the tank design itself is a long way to come.

The ideal APS should be integral to the tank, so that it doesn't have weak parts protruding the silhouette, the parts should be protected from fragments and light weapons but still efficient, the entire shape of the tank should allow for the best possible angle covering and positioning of the system parts. The Armata surely is a first try to integrate the design of the APS system to the design of the vehicle, but it's a very rough tentative. The Kurganets, for example, is a vehicle that has zero integration between the design of the vehicle and the design of the APS.

You can fit any APS system to any existing vehicle, but a brand new vehicle designed from its roots with a dedicated APS in mind will be something different and more efficient. Future systems might start growing in size (raw power of the countermeasure should be increasing rather than descresing in the future) and complexity (more devices pointing outwards and upwards, all around), so the next generations of tanks, given the APS will be used in the future as a standard device, will show a dedicated design.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[cool breeze]

Well my sans miniaturization technology was a big sans...  I agree it has to be at least big enough.  But some of the big systems are supposed to be able to intercept missiles going 6000kmph+ and go as high as 180 Km.  So you wouldn't just scale one of those down to 1/1000.  You'd take a lot of propellant out and put a much bigger warhead in.  My point was just that the vertical launch of intercepting missiles is a very well developed technology in a larger size category.

 

Edit

Woops  I mean target speed 17,000 kmph.   S300 missies weigh up to 1900Kg, I gave the max height and speed numbers from s400, which I assume has bigger missiles.  So I guess your not really shooting for 1/1000 the size more like...  I don't know 1/250th?  How much would anyone guess those vertical cylinders on T-14 weigh each?

Edited May 22, 2015 by cool breeze

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Your statement is logical, therefore I do not dispute the logic of it. However, it is extremely speculative to the point of "wishful thinking" in my view. Your conclusion basically comes down to this:

"Russia absolutely needs a powerful APS, therefore it must build one. I believe it is capable of doing it."

Mine is:

"Russia absolutely needs a powerful APS, therefore it would like to build one. I do not believe it is capable of doing it."

I look at the evidence and see the most logical thing is that the new Russian APS is an improvement over the old one. The hard kill capability against horizontal threats is likely greatly improved over previous versions in the areas of coverage and operational capabilities. Things like faster response times, more assured destruction, wider range of things that can be defeated, etc. I also think it is likely that the new APS includes a brand new soft kill capability against vertical threats. Specifically, IR and normal spectrum blocking smoke. How well it works and how practical it is for Russia to produce are open ended questions.

Your position, on the other hand, is largely "faith based". It might come to pass that your position is the correct one, but a betting man would be unwise to put money on it.

Quite a few pages ago, it was you who said that you don't think there's anything they can't do technology-wise, given enough resources. Do you remember saying that? Now you're changing your statement, yes?

 

I think that the possibility that top-attack may only be countered by soft-kill APS, and not hard-kill, is very high (and to remind you, latest Arena does up to 20 degrees). However, I think that they went for hard-kill top-attack-wise because inertial guidance, when visual is lost, will still most likely guide ATGM to its target, and there may not be time (or means) to move the vehicle away in those split seconds. That's a logical explanation why hard-kill solution is much viable than a soft-kill one. It has nothing to do with my "faith" in Russian engineers.

 

You are very good at dodging debates, and here is another prime example. You asked what evidence there is of the Russian budget being under pressure, so I listed off examples of what is actually happening today. I have not expressed any opinion on the health and well being of the Russian people in either direction. So instead of dealing with the direct answer to your direct question, you do a little dance to distract the audience. Not working on me, for sure.

 

So you say, after not answering my direct questions few times in a row during our previous "discussion".

 

Maybe you did not express, but I thought you did. And what exactly did you expect to hear in return to this answer? "Yes"?

 

If you knew the history of your new country as well as I do, you'd not be laughing. However, you are apparently quite ignorant of both that and general trends in history, therefore it is easy for you to scoff at my comments.

Russia is not close to collapse, but that doesn't mean it's not headed in that direction. Or do you only acknowledge the chance of rain when you are already soaking wet instead of when the sky is cloudy and the air is damp?

 

I do think it will collapse eventually, but for completely different reasons, that have nothing to do with A/K/B topic.

 

First, you neatly dodged my question. Unless you are arguing that the current Russian government can "pull a rabbit out of its hat" in economic terms. I cited current Russian government projections as evidence that Russia can not afford its current defense spending. I cited proven international and historical standards to judge the Russian projections by. I cited the former Russian leader of the great Russian economic turn around as saying the path is unaffordable. And then I asked you how you think all of this can be brushed aside with what amounts to:

"they'll find a way"

You may be right, but understand that your position is faith based and not rooted in anything tangible.

As for the impact of budget cuts on political power, your ignorance of history is showing through quite throughly. Budget cuts alone do not create changes in political power ("coup" is just one form of change, not the only), but rarely do changes in power happen without them. This is as true for Russia as it is for the United States. Coups are only necessary when the political system refuses to bend to the will of the people *and* the will of the people to force change is sufficiently strong. It is pretty close to a universal truth in history. No government is exempt from it. Yanukovych government certainly proved no exception, and neither did the Soviet Union.

 

I did not dodge the question. I agreed with the first statement and therefore gave an answer to the next question that came after it. I didn't say "they'll find a way". I said that they're cutting other budgets and optimize/correct existing ones (like changing the priority for Ground Forces and VDV during the latest meeting). That's what currently happening. What impact will it have on the country as a whole is irrelevant to this topic.

 

Is it possible? Absolutely. And you're correct that discussing this is off topic. How good of you to recognize that so that we can get back to what is on topic:

Russia can not afford its current path of military reforms under current and near future economic conditions without increasing political risks with the domestic population. Therefore, it's planned development of A/K/B is ALREADY running into problems. You seem to think the Russian government can ignore these problems or magically make them go away, I do not.

 

You do not live in Russia or Ukraine, do you? I did/do, in both. I do know what to expect from my own people better. I say there will be no more coups in Ukraine for now, because nobody in the West will support it.

 

Incorrect. There is a third official statement which is what you are so conveniently ignoring... the Russian government's financial statements. One can not look at the first two without considering the third.

 

The statement was that they can't sustain that without cutting other budgets. That's what they do, so that military budget won't be affected much, and priority projects specifically. So if there's no change in military budget, and, actually, a shift in focus, in favor of Ground Forces and VDV, at expense of other branches, it's actually for better for A/K/B future, isn't it?

 

Untrue. Economics do not behave according to election cycles, as the last year of dramatic economic change has demonstrated. Current economic math shows that Russia hasn't enough money to keep the current budget afloat until 2018. Something "dramatic" will come from this reality, one way or another, before 2018. What that is can be debated, but something will result from this and it will be a major change.

 

I meant that things may change dramatically as Putin goes (if ), in terms of govt's priorities.

[c3k]

It is orders of magnitude harder to intercept with APS. The timeline is short. Much shorter than an S300 or S400 has to do with. The distance/mass don't quite scale: time certainly does not.

 

As well, a near miss with a frag warhead does a good job of knocking out an aircraft. Aircraft are, after all, made of the thinnest, lightest, materials possible which JUST meet the strengths needed. It's not hard to frag out a turbine engine. To knock a kinetic penetrator out, you've got to hit it. That's why most (all?) current APS technologies rely upon directed explosives. That's the only way to get something there, fast enough. The differences are whether that explosive is aimed via timed sheet charges (Trophy), or aimed via launched projectile (Quick Kill and probably Afghanit (if that's what the intercept system is called)). The aiming has to be precise. Near misses are as bad as a total miss. S300 warhead can explode 10's of meters away, and it's just as good as a direct hit. The timing is critical. APS is dealing with 1,800 m/s incoming penetrators. Mach 2 (at mid 20's and up) is about 600 m/s. (Many variables there. Could be up to 700 m/s. It all depends on air density.) 

 

Short answer, it's child's play to knock down an aircraft compared to trying to swat away an inbound projectile, whether it's a "slow" rpg, a "medium" atgm, or a "fast" penetrator.

 

The nearest technology is the exoatmospheric interceptor that the US has been testing for awhile. And that's still easier.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

And the integration with the tank design itself is a long way to come.

The ideal APS should be integral to the tank, so that it doesn't have weak parts protruding the silhouette, the parts should be protected from fragments and light weapons but still efficient, the entire shape of the tank should allow for the best possible angle covering and positioning of the system parts. The Armata surely is a first try to integrate the design of the APS system to the design of the vehicle, but it's a very rough tentative. The Kurganets, for example, is a vehicle that has zero integration between the design of the vehicle and the design of the APS.

You can fit any APS system to any existing vehicle, but a brand new vehicle designed from its roots with a dedicated APS in mind will be something different and more efficient. Future systems might start growing in size (raw power of the countermeasure should be increasing rather than descresing in the future) and complexity (more devices pointing outwards and upwards, all around), so the next generations of tanks, given the APS will be used in the future as a standard device, will show a dedicated design.

 

I disagree in some parts. First of all, A/K/B are chassis. Platforms for many vehicles. Not all of them should have APS. But, generally, Kurganets, as a chassis, is more suited for one particular APS installment setup. The way T-14 and T-15 APS are installed is quite different and less "generic" than Kurganets setup.

[sburke]

Remote control tanks: that leaves open the good ol' "insert a worm into the electronics and wait until you need it" scenario.

 

"Boris? Why are you turning your Armata towards my headquarters? Boris?"

 

 

Edited to add: amusing, to me, that smoke grenades are now called "soft kill" systems and are deemed "Active Protection System" sub-elements. LOL. Does that mean infantry squads engage in "soft kill" when they throw THEIR smoke?

 

Smoke is a defensive suite. APS is another defensive suite. Sure, integrate them with sensors, but calling it an "active 'soft kill'" system is very funny...to me.

Ken did you miss the report where the U.S. tobacco industry came up with a soft kill APS cigarette brand? The object is we export a ton of cheap cigarettes to Russia, they develop a nicotine habit and die in droves before they can launch ATGMs. Cancer studies prove it to be effective.

Meanwhile my company just decided to cut my salary by 50%. I however really felt I needed a new car for my mid life crisis so I went out and bought one I could barely afford under my old salary. I don't see any problem with that financially. By not having money for food I will ensure I stay slim. Chicks dig me now though I feel a bit too weak to drive.

[cool breeze]

It is orders of magnitude harder to intercept with APS. The timeline is short. Much shorter than an S300 or S400 has to do with. The distance/mass don't quite scale: time certainly does not.

 

As well, a near miss with a frag warhead does a good job of knocking out an aircraft. Aircraft are, after all, made of the thinnest, lightest, materials possible which JUST meet the strengths needed. It's not hard to frag out a turbine engine. To knock a kinetic penetrator out, you've got to hit it. That's why most (all?) current APS technologies rely upon directed explosives. That's the only way to get something there, fast enough. The differences are whether that explosive is aimed via timed sheet charges (Trophy), or aimed via launched projectile (Quick Kill and probably Afghanit (if that's what the intercept system is called)). The aiming has to be precise. Near misses are as bad as a total miss. S300 warhead can explode 10's of meters away, and it's just as good as a direct hit. The timing is critical. APS is dealing with 1,800 m/s incoming penetrators. Mach 2 (at mid 20's and up) is about 600 m/s. (Many variables there. Could be up to 700 m/s. It all depends on air density.) 

 

Short answer, it's child's play to knock down an aircraft compared to trying to swat away an inbound projectile, whether it's a "slow" rpg, a "medium" atgm, or a "fast" penetrator.

 

The nearest technology is the exoatmospheric interceptor that the US has been testing for awhile. And that's still easier.

They don't just intercept Aircraft.  no aircraft fly at 17000kmph or 180km altitude.  And anyway aircraft are generally harder to intercept because of the aerodynamic maneuverability.  We'll, harder for the speed/range/height.  the basic thing of seeing the projectile coming via radar, plotting its trajectory, and intercepting it seems pretty much the same for supersonic ballistic missiles and anything else that might take a fast relatively straight line for you.   

 

Edit to add:  Not arguing with everything you said mind you.  I mean your clearly right about the time being shorter for the tank APS system.  But I feel like your leaving out of the equation all of the mid course corrections that have to be made to intercept maneuvering targets.  I think the timescale of the whole tank APS engagement sequence is probably pretty long compared to a lot of the on the fly midflight calculations that must be made.

 

Oh and further some of the targets the missile interception systems attack combine supersonic speeds with evasive maneuvering and are still supposed to get shot down.

 

and definitely disagree strongly about the exoatmospheric kill vehicle seeming easier....  speeds hugely higher....  in space... orbital mechanics...  super huge distances... small sensors lifted into space....  Lots of background radiation...

Edited May 22, 2015 by cool breeze

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

They don't just intercept Aircraft.  no aircraft fly at 17000kmph or 180km altitude.  And anyway aircraft are generally harder to intercept because of the aerodynamic maneuverability.  We'll, harder for the speed/range/height.  the basic thing of seeing the projectile coming via radar, plotting its trajectory, and intercepting it seems pretty much the same for supersonic ballistic missiles and anything else that might take a fast relatively straight line for you

 

The big difference though is even a tank firing at max effective range is going to only give you about four seconds to hit with a KE type projectile (with average shots being made much closer), and not much longer for other direct fire type weapons.  For ATGMs it might be as long as 30 seconds which is why solving that problem has never been especially difficult, but still somewhat problematic if that threat is coming along a weird vector.

 

Additionally when looking at other interceptor type systems, the sheer cost involved is usually not small to put it mildly.  This cost is usually mitigated somewhat by the value of what's being protected (Carrier Battle Group, 30 KM worth of battlespace, etc), but to build something small enough to mount on a tank, and not just that, build several thousand of them that are robust enough to be shot a few times and not fail....that is again, we're looking into the sort of distant future systems over tomorrow's equipment.  

 

This high tech spacetank stuff only really makes sense if the Armata is being built to challenge Western tanks.  The assessments of it being a neighbor bullying tank I find, are much more reasonable, and much less based in faith in the All Father Putin (May His Iron Fist Restore the Empire)

[cool breeze]

To me it seems pretty clear that they are built to challenge western tanks. Challenging the west is one of their long time national past times, almost like baseball here.   The S-400 as a detection to launch time of .6 seconds.  It is of course  very big expensive system, but some of that size and expense is so it can do the detection at a range of 600km.  I imagine the 0.6 seconds to launch is more based on the speed of modern computer processors, vs. the huge fanciness of the apparatus.   Its not the job of the Russian tech industry to solve the miniaturization problem, that's the job of the worldwide tech industry, which Russia is an almost full beneficiary from.  Russia just has to/had to just wait until miniaturization technology got to the level where they can just adapt the highly mature vertical launch systems into a mini tank mounted form. 

[Battlefront.com]

I do accept solid arguments and logic. Please refer back to my previous message addressed to Steve where (at the end) I point out two latest official statements re newgen vehicles and ask whether anything is going to change in that regard. I see no evidence to support the idea that they won't be able to pull off what they've officially stated (more or less, obviously). If you think they can't, please say why they can't. Specifically.

Good lord... I thought you understood English pretty well. Apparently not.

The reason is the economy can not support the plan.

We appear to be stuck in your "absolute" thinking again as we had back many pages ago. You refuse, and I mean utterly and completely refuse, to accept the possibility that just because Russia has said something (and means it) that it might not happen (even though they want it to). That's a really weak position to adopt.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

So that's the case, western technology has to hit that level of economical miniaturization.  And looking at PATRIOT, ABM, and other advanced systems....

 

Yeah it's not there.  It's really really not there.  The system as described and portrayed does not reflect whats ready for primetime, or even merely the cutting edge.  

 

 

 

To me it seems pretty clear that they are built to challenge western tanks. Challenging the west is one of their long time national past times, almost like baseball here.

 

Oh it totally is.  Just the question is if it's "THE ARMATA MAY EAT ALL ABRAMS FOR BREAKFAST RATIO 4.5 IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5 YEAR PLAN ON RUSSIAN POWER SUPREME" (but hey it's actually just designed to provide dramatic overmatch to likely threats like ex-Soviet designs but gotta keep up apperances brah) or it's actually intended to be super ultra tank supreme.  The first is not unreasonable, the second is difficult to put a lot of faith in given the reliance on external innovation, limited resources, and the maturity of some of the systems involved.

 

 

 

The S-400 as a detection to launch time of .6 seconds.  It is of course  very big expensive system, but some of that size and expense is so it can do the detection at a range of 600km.  I imagine the 0.6 seconds to launch is more based on the speed of modern computer processors, vs. the huge fanciness of the apparatus.  

 

It's not just a large system, it's a system in which literally every part of the platform is designed to achieve that missile in the air time.  It's the difference between a can opener and the can opener on a swiss army knife.  The can opener can 100% afford to comprise all other factors to open a can and thus achieve maximum can efficiency.    The can opener on the swiss army knife is constricted by a wide variety of things to make it able to both open cans, and still be able to carry out non-can opening tasks.  

 

The sort of performance to make a VLS guided hardkill projectile reasonable is something accomplished by something MUCH bigger, and MUCH more powerful and VERY expensive that isn't also trying to be a high performance direct fire weapons system.  It'd be a neat trick to miniaturize it, but frankly no one is there yet, and it's doubtful the Russians are any closer than any number of better funded, just as advanced or more advanced military R&D programs.  

[L0ckAndL0ad]

We appear to be stuck in your "absolute" thinking again as we had back many pages ago. You refuse, and I mean utterly and completely refuse, to accept the possibility that just because Russia has said something (and means it) that it might not happen (even though they want it to). That's a really weak position to adopt.

 

Oh no, we'll be really stuck when I'll ask you to quote my exact words where I express such position. Then you'd refuse (you won't be able to, because there's nothing in my words that says anything like that), and you'd switch to another topic. Then we'll be stuck again with you ignoring my direct questions.

 

Anything may or may not happen, that's pretty obvious IMO. Why ridiculous statements again?

[sburke]

Steve. Russia never ever lies. Ever. Did I mention Russia never lies? Ignore those Spetznatz guys, all a Ukrainian psyops campaign.