T-90MS, PT-16 and Griffin Video

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The Abrams has had ERA kits available and in service for like, ten years.  They're not mounted for the same reason Russian ERA isn't "loaded" during peacetime, but the ability to mount ERA has been there, and there's enough ARAT to have wasted time equipping my BDE's old M1A1s to go sit in the motor pool in Iraq 2010 or so. 

[akd]

Yes, that is kind of my point.  Some have claimed ERA kit is only for COIN and Abrams in Europe wouldn't be so equipped, or fail to understand it is a kit that does not have to be added in the factory (unlike Russian heavy ERA).

[Ivanov]

22 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The Abrams has had ERA kits available and in service for like, ten years.  They're not mounted for the same reason Russian ERA isn't "loaded" during peacetime, but the ability to mount ERA has been there, and there's enough ARAT to have wasted time equipping my BDE's old M1A1s to go sit in the motor pool in Iraq 2010 or so. 

Are there similarly some APS systems available for Abrmas in case of any serious war?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That's a story all of it's own.....The Israeli 'Trophy' system was a serious candidate, but Raytheon apparently offered 'Quick-Kill' in the same time-frame.  Squabbling ensued and nothing actually got deployed AFAIK. 

[Ivanov]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That's a story all of it's own.....The Israeli 'Trophy' system was a serious candidate, but Raytheon apparently offered 'Quick-Kill' in the same time-frame.  Squabbling ensued and nothing actually got deployed AFAIK. 

Apparently Trophy for Abrams is being tested as we speak and we should expect some decision until the end of this year.

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/28700

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

8 hours ago, Ivanov said:

Are there similarly some APS systems available for Abrmas in case of any serious war?

The American APS system has a bit more of a tricky path than you'd think.  Around the late 1990's through mid-2000's the Army was looking to have this grand Future Combat System program that would have the same basic tracked platform support everything from a tank-like vehicle, to medevac, to artillery, to command posts, to IFVs and beyond.  It was supposed to be super-light and rapidly deployable because looking at the lessons learned from Iraq 1991, was that we could go anywhere, beat anyone, it just needed a few months to get there and get set up.

The first "result" of this concept was the Stryker, which was originally the "Interim" program that was supposed to serve largely as a test bed/initial fielding of a unit that would be faster to deploy than conventional armor, but more hitting power and mobility than light infantry.

However that's getting offtrack. In so many words the FCS had to be light enough to be air transportable, but also able to be shot at without exploding.  It also had to somehow mount a pretty robust protective array across several pretty different platforms.

Quick-Kill was the APS that seemed to offer that choice. Trophy was cool and all, but it suffered in that it only protected against some sorts of threats, and it did so in a way that was fairly indiscriminate.  Quick-Kill was supposed to be less cone of fragmentary "interceptors" and more a missile sort of thing that would engage incoming projectiles and protect the platform.  The advantage to Quick-Kill was one of development, in that while Trophy was a mature system, Trophy type APSes don't offer much in the term of growth, physics somewhat limits their effective range, and their mass/composition is somewhat limited.  A Quick-Kill system of the future might be able to deflect sabots or even fire in salvos to kill the rocket and the shooter.

The downside of course is that it was a very advanced system, that was addressing a problem that was not IEDs or winning hearts and minds circa 2003-2010, that had a whole host of technological hurdles that were going to be very expensive to fix.

APS for the US Army (the USMC may test it, but it's doubtful they'd procure it without an Army purchase to give some economy of scale) only really gained momentum again with continued Russian aggression which really proved to be a shot in the arm to the conventional elements of the Army-USMC as far as funding and trainin focus.

What seems likely if I had to gamble would be a limited procurement of Trophy for testing/theater readiness kits (like the ERA), with additional funding to push for a newer style APS from domestic sources.

 

[Ivanov]

Thanks for an informative as always reply  Yep, the years 2003-2010 didn't do much good in terms of developing capabilities necessary for fighting the near peer adversaries.

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Came across this on the impressive Tumblr bmashina. Expect you can tell us a bit. Are the ERA boxes ARAT, and what are they doing to the turret side?
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Am not quite sure what to make of this, since it's got T-90 versions I never heard of, but it sure is great to look at. From bmashina's Tumblr. For some reason, I can't get it to show as a pic. Anyone who can, please do so.

https://bmashina.tumblr.com/image/157939910309

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kinophile]

Very different mounting and design compared to other ERA. 

[HUSKER2142]

14 hours ago, John Kettler said:

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Came across this on the impressive Tumblr bmashina. Expect you can tell us a bit. Are the ERA boxes ARAT, and what are they doing to the turret side?
 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

And what is the norm for mounting dynamic protection time for Abrams tank?

^{А какой норматив по времени монтирования динамической защиты на танк абрамс ?}

 

[Kinophile]

Jk, on mobile, on the site - long press on the image, select -'open image in new tab'. 

On PC, right click on the image, select the same. 

Then go to that new tab, copy/paste it's url into your post. 

 

[John Kettler]

kinophile,

Thanks! Now for the real question. Are these notional versions or real ones? 

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The turret side plates are for the turret ARAT, both to mount the armor array to, and also to keep the fairly light for ERA backblast from blowing holes in the sheetmetal stowage boxes.  

As far as installation time, if I knew it I couldn't tell you.  I can say ARAT installation could be done by Company Team level mechanics if provided the kit.  Indeed the fact the contractors are mostly just watching seems to indicate this is a "train the trainer" event (I could be wrong, I watched the video with the sound off, for all I know the video was all about how General Dynamics will install all ERA for forever amen).

[IMHO]

@panzersaurkrautwerfer, is to correct to say the outer curved layer somehow helps with 20-40mm AP shells or it's just for precursor charges of tandem warheads plus HMG APs?

[DreDay]

On 2/26/2017 at 11:28 PM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Anything he disagrees with.

Russia is capable of making perfectly good hardware, it's just:

PzSkw (I hope that you don't mind me calling you that). I wanted to comment on this post of yours, because I find it both very well formulated and informed; yet missing some critical points.

1. The stated performance values are virtually always inflated, or purposefully vague.

That is absolutely true. Russians are infamous for claiming that their new equipment has no equivalent competitors in the world. They've been better about it lately, mostly saying that their arms match the best samples available internationally... but that's still quite a boastful claim. Then again, to be fair, what countries are actually modest or even honest about the performance of their weapon platforms?

2. The process in which equipment transitions from "idea" to "test concept" to "limited fielding" to "actually in common use" is both opaque and likely not understood by the parties navigating it themselves.  Various bits of kit have 100% been selected as the next generation Russian something or other...only to never reach fieldings, or the entirely of one Brigade has a complete set, and no one else.

That is correct as well, even though lately they have been much more consistent in deploying standard arms and equipment to multiple brigades/formations at once (i.e. T-73B3, BTR-82A, Ratnik, etc.). The reason for this ties down to their A - limited financial abilities B - limited MOD support for some models that they are supplied by the military industrial complex (i.e. BTR-90)

3. Russia's limitations are well known in broad strokes but poorly understood in detail, while the official statements broadcast nothing but strength and the impending amazing something or other.  This is intentional on the part of the Russian government, but it makes it hard to gauge actual outcome.  A complete revamp of the Russian armor fleet appears unlikely in the short term, but there's a possibility we might still see low number updates, or a wider, more modest project.

While I agree with your last point, I have to point out that you approach this issue as a US Analyst (which is only fair). The reality is that most of the confusion and discrepancy with Russian military procurement announcements has less to do with some grand scheme to intimidate their enemies; and much more to do with internal competition between various weapon manufacturers. All of them want a piece of the military budget pie, and it is essential to have their systems adopted domestically in order to sell them abroad. That is the primary reason for multiple announcements of new and diverse system being adopted.

When watching armor, and really especially armor for the Russians it needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt.  Here's my rules of thumb when dealing with Russian armor, but could still totally be applied across the defense industry:  

1. Never ever ever take press releases as factual.  Some of them may actually still be correct, but enough of them are internal politics, fluffed up to gain interest in proofs of concepts, or simple falsehoods that you cannot take them at face value.

That's a good rule that can apply to any armed force. However, the numbers of new weapon systems (Airplane, Helicopters, Tanks, etc..) that have been delivered to actual combat units are generally quite accurate and don't seem to cause a lot of questions.

2. Watch the numbers in service vs the capabilities of systems.  Part of Russia's information operations is presenting their cutting edge equipment as representative of the common Russian military formations, when in reality they're only found in limited fieldings.  

That goes back to my previous point, you need to follow the actual delivery numbers of weapon systems to combat units. They are generally freely available and reliable.

3. Always ask why you're being given information when dealing with anyone's military capability claims.  You're being exposed to information with the intention of getting you to come to conclusions and outcomes supported by the body releasing the information.  This is especially true with Russia given the absolute absence of separation between media and state.  

Again, that's a great rule to apply to any armed force. However, I have to disagree with your last point. Russian media is much more state-controlled than ours (at least on the surface of it); however it is also controlled by business interest just as much as ours, if not more. That is why you will constantly find Russian articles mocking one weapon system in favor of its opponent (KA-52 vs MI-28 is a great example of that), and for that reason they can be quite informative and provide for a much more diverse specter of opinions on domestic military hardware than you would expect.

As the case is Russian armor updates are something that certainly appear to be taking their time, and barring dramatic changes in world situation, will continue at a slow pace.  It's premature to assume anything about future T-90 models, because we've seen at least a half dozen T-90 upgrade packages, all of which were totally happening, none of which have actually occurred.  We're all prone to grab onto whatever bits of information come over the fence, but again, a skeptical curiosity is really the only way to approach this field, let alone the Russian corner of it.  

Totally agree here.

Peace,

DreDay

Edited March 14, 2017 by DreDay