L0ckAndL0ad

Can you be less generic, please? I don't follow what's your point really. I countered his argument about their development problems. Comparing BFC and MoD budgets in absolute numbers is crazy, but in terms of "grades" they can be compared. Military software development is practically AAA-grade, in terms of functionality and stability. Especially the one that needs to work at speeds of 0.05s. It takes a lot to do something like that. BFC isn't a AAA studio, therefore they can't even afford going for a better game engine that can allow OOP-friendly tooltips and scrollable lists. For factual budget and economical discussion one may want to refer to one of my latest posts with budget numbers and start from there.

The reason why Charles may not do something for CM really fast is because CM engine has a lot of limitations, and not as flexible. Obviously, I have no idea how it is coded, but you can't even do tooltips everywhere where it's needed, because you'd have to hardcode every each of them in, and you don't want to do that. Same with sub-system list and whatever. Which leads me to believe that it isn't very OOP-friendly and/or outdated. Also, BFC's and Russian MoD's budgets aren't really comparable, so all in all, the example is bad. As for seeing vehicles in service with APS, there're Israelis, the ones that are fighting official ground war. US aren't in ground war now. Russia isn't officially. If they'll go, they'll be equipping APS, this is why you've put them into CMBS. Why even asking then?

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.

That awkward moment when everybody knows that the President is corrupt, but as long as the West (with US being the first in line) backs him up, it's okay, because they want as much puppet states as they can get and can't be too picky. The more I think about it, if you get people like Saakashvili (another US puppet), Yushchenko, Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and Co, and how many more are out there, all together, you might even be able to form a whole separate government with them, if placed on some sort of distant island Oh, wait..!!! Me, justifying crimes? O_o On a contrary. But don't worry, I'm not going to bother all of you with endless discussions about it here. Got finals starting in two days. Still couldn't miss to comment such funny statements on the forum! Like, it was really funny to read. And not funny, at the same time, if you know what I mean.

Funniest thing is, all civilized world says I'm still a Ukrainian citizen and live on Ukrainian land (occupied, obv) Civilized world has to be more consistent But you're totally right, my opinion doesn't really matter. It's free of charge, tho!

What is this, some kind of justification for putting those people in power in Ukraine? I see no link between what I've pointed out and what you've said. And you are missing my point. A lot of people do white horse riding and whitewash Kiev govt, comparing them with evil Russia (which indeed does evil things) in a "good boys vs bad boys" manner, but in fact, Kiev govt is not "poor". They are also corrupt, lying, warmongering lunatics and criminals. And I used Western press links to show you that, not some RT propaganda some people might think I'm influenced by. I mean, freaking Saakashvili, governor of Odessa? What a joke. Why I brought this up and why it is relevant to the thread? Because Kiev govt is not interested in Minsk agreements being fulfilled. They will not disarm their own militia they barely control. They will not allow reforms that are written in Minsk agreement. Therefore the conflict will keep going and going.

This is so true. Wonder who bends it over tho. Not oligarchs and foreign hawks/neocons/wanted criminals, I presume. Ukraine's being ruled by its people, we all know that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/29/the-not-very-nice-things-u-s-officials-used-to-say-about-ukraines-new-president/ http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-appoints-us-senator-mccain-presidential-aide-003503382.html http://photocdn2.itar-tass.com/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/uploads/i/20150513/4007950.jpg http://www.unian.info/politics/1083763-poroshenko-to-personally-introduce-saakashvili-as-odesa-region-governor-on-saturday-source.html http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/minister-saakashvili-will-go-from-georgian-president-to-odesa-governor-389869.html White horse riding for the win!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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:

I don't see any problems with the numbers. If you can point out specific ones, then try. Generic statements won't work in this area. Out of all military budget, more than 14% (14 is an old number, it should be higher right now, I just don't know how high) is for Ground Forces alone. If you can run the numbers, you'll see how much that is, even for "buying 2300 T-14s" (with pricetag of, say, 400m Rubles per unit = 7.58m USD today). If you want to, again, point out that it'll make Russian people angry (due to cuts in other areas), then we've already discussed this - it won't change a thing. Corrupt regime will just shake it off, better than Taylor Swift. Then what is this right here, if not accusing me of trying to predict the only possible outcome and denying any other? This is you blaming me for practically denying any other possibility other than the ones I'm predicting. I corrected myself when I used "certain". As for taking stuff "for granted", I remember two things. About APS being Quick Kill like, and stuff being more or less ready for field trials now. APS part backed up by the patent, and readiness part you've agreed with me yourself, and it was also backed up by the interview with UVZ guy. So I don't see anything wrong here. Economic and political part of the question is where you probably say my logic is faulty, incomplete and overly optimistic. This is something you still have to validate to me.

I went and compared APS radars of Drozd, two Arena setups, light Afghanit version on Kurganets-25 IFV and similar on T-14/T-15. Not to scale, especially latest Arena variant: : All of them are separated into two segments. While Trophy and other radar plates on T-14/T-15 are singular plates. ADDED: Angles! Right! Look at the bottom part of the collage. It is from T-14. Angles for that sensor will be limited by the outer shell of the turret. You can look at T-14 pictures and get the idea of what are the max possible angles for such sensor are.

Just noticed that small (radar?) sensors also "sliced" upwards.

First more or less official data is out, printed in UVZ's corporate journal "Technowars". PDF preview (in Russian): http://technowars.ru/assets/content/article/174/tw-3-2015-cut.pdf 3+8 seating setups for infantry carriers. Kurganets weight 25 tons (duh). T-14 and T-15's APS is said to be top-attack capable (while smokescreen launcher system is mentioned separately). No such comment on Kurg. The weirest part is that it says that there are two 7.62 MGs on T-14. So, a coax either in that small gap on the right, or next to gunner's sight behind the closed doors (less likely)?

You meant 18, not 19. 4 front, 4 aft, 5 on either left and right side. What is most interesting is that there are 5 sensor boxes, not 4. Can you draw another one showing sensor coverage? I gave more thought to APS kill munitions. I now start thinking that it should be more or less akin to complexity of a preprogrammable airburst round, or even maybe simpler (but faster latency-wise). There's also a parallel can be drawn with "offset" launch method of certain ATGMs. How a preprogrammable airburst round works? It gets programmed before firing, getting the number of seconds it needs to wait before exploding. Counting mechanism may be different, and it often becomes a large source of error due to its accuracy (plus distance estimation error before firing). But, basically, when timer stops, munition is triggered to explode. Accuracy depends on range estimation error + timer's accuracy. How an "offset" ATGM launch method (the one that doesn't point the laser at target before the last seconds, so not to spook it) works is more of a problem to describe, because there's little open data on it. But from what I know, it can be done manually by a human eyeballing the thing (like with old Soviet ATGMs), or also preprogrammed/done by the launcher itself, automatically. Back in a day, I figured out a way how I would've done a preprogrammed logic for such a mode. It would work only at longer ranges, and it is exactly what official documents describe for certain ATGMs that have this feature, like newest Ukr-Belarusian ATGMs), something specific, like past 1000 meters. So how I thought it would work? Movement speed of ATGM is predetermined beforehand. Therefore, you can calculate how much time does it need before reaching said 1000 meters (minimal range to use such firing method). So, the ATGM is launched offset off target, given N seconds to travel 1000 meters, then crosshairs (laserbeam riding ones, with laser dot at the center) can be slewed onto the target itself, just a few seconds before the impact. Meaning that if you know that your target is definitely past 1000 meters, you need to laser-spook it only few seconds before the impact, which gives you more chances to kill it. And now onto the controllable APS munition. Munition has to have some sort of propellant inside, most likely solid fuel or explosives. Say, it's segmented, at least by 2 parts, so that burn time of each segment is known. But the trick here is that the munition has multiple exhaust ports. Selecting specific ports to open is a key to steer munition in a right way. So, while propellant burn time is predetermined, you only need to preprogram the munition to use specific exhaust port. Which may make the munition technically less complex than a preprogrammed airburst round, that has a built in countdown timer of some sort (and has its own accuracy error). Obviously, APS munition and on-board computer must be immensely much faster in determining which port should be opened. But as long as these calculations are made on board, and not on a munition itself, it should be solvable. So if I was to make such a system, I would've done it like this. On board computer detects incoming target, calculates intercept solution, figures out what ports need to open on a munition that would be used. Sends port number to munition and launches it. First segment of munition fuel burns for N seconds (or fractions, really), munition flies initial predetermined ejection course. Then second segment of fuel ignites, and a specific needed exhaust port opens (or multiple ports, if needed), and munition moves to intercept, exploding in the direction of its movement (onto the incoming projectile). The schematic of such APS munition will look like this. Two (at least) solid fuel segments, controllable (one time open command) exhaust ports, logic circuit that can receive port number data and open them, and, finally, counter-projectile explosives. The whole program runs in sequence, one part's end starts the next one: first fuel segment burns -> specific ports open -> second fuel segment burns -> warhead explodes.

Yeah, I saw that, and was aiming "2300 blah blah" sentence at the article, not at you. UVZ's CEO said that their tank is very price competitive and costs less than Western tanks. Take it for what it's worth. There isn't anything about top attack ATGMs. But they are describing a controllable, steerable munition, so, why not?

Yeah, not the first time I force you to change your statement. Doing something right, I suppose. I dunno, going for 52 vehicles in the first batch, and 100 of each type for field trials, which is very unusual for Russian R&D cycle, I think they're aiming for large numbers. I do understand your concerns about the future numbers of them. But I still think they are able to do it, if they really want it. You've gotta be kidding me. I'm done with your silly statements on my behalf. Any paragraph or argument containing them will be ignored by me from now on. Nope, there's no need in pulling the teeth. Everything I say is my personal speculation, that's pretty obvious, and I keep repeating that from time to time. There hasn't been a single instance of me claiming the opposite. And I can back it up with my own quotes, that you've obviously missed. There were these: That's gotta be enough. Yeah, that seems to be the case. This is what happens when you intentionally create so many silly statements on my behalf, instead of reading what I'm actually saying. I think we've gone over discussing semantics and debate practices for too long. Just ignoring your silly statements looks like a much better way to go.

Latest official statement from UVZ's CEO Sienko (in Russian): https://youtu.be/MOt-_cSjSBY They consider export of Armata (and will show it on RAE-2015 in September), but domestic contracts are still a priority. As stated before, they're aiming to start field trials this year. Field trials will take at least one year (which is likely a reduction of previous 2016-2019 gap after latest meeting in Sochi with Putin). Main engineer workforce involved is between 25 and 40 years old (a very good thing, IMO). Armata's development was component-based, and all baseline components are formed by now (as I've expected them to be). Overall (unit + support) cost for Armata vehicles is still lower than of (Western?) competitors.

The article they are referring to has no credibility, because it has no source. And those anonymous numbers directly contradict latest and actually official statements. And, yeah, of course, 2300 tanks, blah blah blah. The entries with data never actually appeared on that page, as I excepted them to. Some peeps say that they were there and later taken off, and still can be found in stuff like google cache, but I haven't actually tried to look it up. Either way, one should be cautious about those numbers. As for Terminators, I thought they've already had them there. What people are really missing out tho is what I've said previously about APS patent. The first actual evidence to suggest that Afghanit (at least heavy version) is aimed to defeat tank rounds and has steerable munitions.

The word "faith" looks like a dead horse by now. But as it turns out.... Lets look at what you've said way back. 5 days ago. So if I "put too much faith in one line of logic", then so do you, because our statements look identical, with your being one "not" word longer. One should not be so cruel to dead animals or be intentionally irritating with other people. Should I tell you that every single time when you're trying to predict events? Yep, it cannot. Just because you feel like it, doesn't mean it's true. I told you that it isn't. It is your choice not to listen. If by "facts" you mean stuff that happened before the fact of denial, then I do not remember anything like that on my part. If you mean that when facts happened after the fact of denial, like, when you were trying to predict the future, then we come back to your phrase: "we simply don't know" (didn't know). Oops. And that analogy with weathermen is too far from the situation that it tries to portray to be valuable.

I was talking about what can be assumed to be happening, what is most likely happening. I've never called it a "fact". Silly statements become irritating. Always assuming the worst and not what's most logical is not really a good way to predict results. I have no idea how Americans managed to ef up Sgt. York, but the reliance on certain APS qualities in the new projects is too big (especially on T-14) to think they didn't test it before going forward. It's pretty much make or break for T-14. A decisive factor in calling it either a tank or a tank-destroyer. BMP-3 can be used as a good example here only in terms of lobbying bad designs or rushing stuff with unreliable components to mass production. But BMP-3 was operational when they've started producing them. As for corruption, rushing, and losing face, yeah. Sure. This is the most dangerous thing to watch out for. But it'd depend on how people in control of actual development would be able to fight it. They certainly want their projects to succeed. It's not Soviet Union and not even the 90's anymore. More over, UVZ is not govt owned, it's a corporation. It is in their best interest to make products that buyers will be happy with. And btw, T-14 will be shown on RAE-2015, in September. You were able to do it because you've studied it extensively. No, I've never said that it's impossible to make accurate predictions. I said you'd be more prone to failure while filling blanks. So, while some of your statements and predictions are true, some of them not. As for the next question. No, generally. But you obviously want to say that I was wrong about stuff that you were right about, and therefore you are as good at knowing stuff about my part of the world as I am. That's what you imply. I disagree with such statement. In some cases that you're implying, I was being cautious before making final judgement. Especially where I was able to participate myself - I was trying to get rid of any prejudice and look at stuff from a completely neutral perspective. I don't feel even a tiny bit sorry about giving someone a benefit of a doubt. And I don't remember a single case of you "proving me wrong". You can't "prove wrong" someone who isn't sure yet about it. Even if you read high end stuff like BBC, you are. That's the last thing I'm going to say on this (off) topic.