Jump to content

Armata soon to be in service.


Recommended Posts

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.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. I should have been more specific with my terminology. Anyway, I see that once again LnL is doing a typical debate dance around the primary point I made. And that is just because there is a really super sweet video proving a possibility doesn't mean it will become a practical reality. Since my point 100% debunks his line of thinking, it's understandable that he doesn't want to engage in a legitimate debate and instead resort to rather obvious dodging.

 

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?

Selective memory on your part. First, I qualified that by saying that if they concentrated on that one thing they could do it. I definitely stated that the primary problem is that Russia is trying to do too much and therefore can not effectively pull off everything.

Second, an obvious caveat to that is "within reason". I do not think Russia has the ability to teleport objects, transmute lead into gold, or deploy sub killing sharks with frick'n laserbeams on their heads.

Third, I did not think the APS is meant to hard kill top attack missiles. If they do intend it to do that, then I do not think they have the ability to produce it any time soon. It's not quite sharks with frick'n laserbeams on their heads, but I do not think they can pull it off AND everything else AND afford to produce them AND produce in numbers that matter.

 

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.

No, it's pure fantasy and conjecture. Here's an example:

Logically the best defense is to teleport the tank to another section of the battlefield just before it is hit by a top attack missile. That is the best way to defeat it and therefore it is logical that Russian engineers are hard at work on making a vehicle teleportation device.

Drawing conclusions from a logical, but unlikely/improbable, proposition is inherently unsound. One would say even illogical. Which means your position is absolutely "faith based" and not logical.

 

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

I do not dodge because that makes for a dishonest debate, and I never engage in dishonest debates. Therefore, I know of no question you've asked that I haven't answered directly and in detail. State it clearly and I will answer it even if you continue your reluctance to answer direct questions.

 

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

You are failing to see that the spending priorities on A/K/B are symptoms of bigger problems and that, in fact, it is making those problems worse and more obvious.

 

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.

They already have had to increase defense spending, in absolute value, at the same time as they are cutting non-defense spending. And even this plan is below sustainability levels. Unless oil prices magically shoot up out of the blue (and this is a possibility, though remote), shifting some costs around and trimming a few corners here and there will not work. That is the crux of the articles that were linked to and your response to that is "they'll find a way". Which is why I say it's a "faith based" belief.

 

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.

Do you really? Can I refer you back to the debate you and I had about the Crimean referendum now, or would you prefer I "not go there"?

 

I say there will be no more coups in Ukraine for now, because nobody in the West will support it.

That doesn't mean there is no possibility of another coup. The first one was done because the people were fed up with the Yanukovych government, not because they were paid to by the West (as the Russian propaganda states). If Poroshenko screws up significantly, another coup is possible. Unlikely? Yes, but it is foolish to say there is no possibility of it.

 

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?

Rationalizing spending is definitely a good thing. Always. But sometimes that isn't enough. It won't be in this case either.

 

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

Agreed. If Putin is removed from office, in any way, the change will be dramatic. My point is that even if he stays in power, it is very likely there are dramatic changes in store for Russia before 2018.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, as a (Non US) lawyer I´ll try  :   In the case of Armata Vs. Skeptics the Court finds as follow:   - That given the complete lack of evidence to support anything resembling technical specs, th

This vid shows Armata and predecessors. It has the virtue of putting a lot of useful images and video (plus not so useful PS bull) in one location, but it lacks captions pointing out what's what and f

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat miss

Posted Images

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.

So let me get this straight. Despite what you've written, what you are saying is that even if it is "logical" for them to develop an APS that can defeat a top attack with a hard kill, that it might not even be trying to develop it? Or it is not technically capable of developing it? Or that it might be impractical to field? Or that it might not be able to afford it even if it can? If so, then I agree with you and therefore retract my objections to what I have termed your "faith based" belief system.

 

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

Maybe because you arguing with me every time I introduce that possibility?

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selective memory on your part. First, I qualified that by saying that if they concentrated on that one thing they could do it. I definitely stated that the primary problem is that Russia is trying to do too much and therefore can not effectively pull off everything.

Second, an obvious caveat to that is "within reason". I do not think Russia has the ability to teleport objects, transmute lead into gold, or deploy sub killing sharks with frick'n laserbeams on their heads.

Third, I did not think the APS is meant to hard kill top attack missiles. If they do intend it to do that, then I do not think they have the ability to produce it any time soon. It's not quite sharks with frick'n laserbeams on their heads, but I do not think they can pull it off AND everything else AND afford to produce them AND produce in numbers that matter.

 

So why Israel can do APS against top attacks, and Russia can't?

 

No, it's pure fantasy and conjecture. Here's an example:

Logically the best defense is to teleport the tank to another section of the battlefield just before it is hit by a top attack missile. That is the best way to defeat it and therefore it is logical that Russian engineers are hard at work on making a vehicle teleportation device.

Drawing conclusions from a logical, but unlikely/improbable, proposition is inherently unsound. One would say even illogical. Which means your position is absolutely "faith based" and not logical.

 

Bringing up ridiculous claims is always good for a discussion! If you can show us a proof of concept video of teleporting APS (contrary to Quick Kill video), then I'd discuss such possibility.

 

I do not dodge because that makes for a dishonest debate, and I never engage in dishonest debates. Therefore, I know of no question you've asked that I haven't answered directly and in detail. State it clearly and I will answer it even if you continue your reluctance to answer direct questions.

 

Our previous debate ended by you not wanting to quote my words to compare them with your paraphrasing of my supposed position.

You are failing to see that the spending priorities on A/K/B are symptoms of bigger problems and that, in fact, it is making those problems worse and more obvious.

 

One can tie anything with anything in the world, if one wishes. I do not think that there's a direct connection between A/K/B and possible collapse of Russian govt.

They already have had to increase defense spending, in absolute value, at the same time as they are cutting non-defense spending. And even this plan is below sustainability levels. Unless oil prices magically shoot up out of the blue (and this is a possibility, though remote), shifting some costs around and trimming a few corners here and there will not work. That is the crux of the articles that were linked to and your response to that is "they'll find a way". Which is why I say it's a "faith based" belief.

 

You do realize that I've specifically said "I did not say "they'll find a way"", right? My impression so far is that increase in absolute values is a correction due to currency exchange rate changes.

 

Do you really? Can I refer you back to the debate you and I had about the Crimean referendum now, or would you prefer I "not go there"?

 

Yes, I do. The fact that I gave Russia a chance to show me that they can do a fair referendum doesn't mean I don't know our people.

 

That doesn't mean there is no possibility of another coup. The first one was done because the people were fed up with the Yanukovych government, not because they were paid to by the West (as the Russian propaganda states). If Poroshenko screws up significantly, another coup is possible. Unlikely? Yes, but it is foolish to say there is no possibility of it.

 

LOL, if Russian propaganda says something, doesn't mean it's false. And again, this isn't the place for such discussions.

 

Rationalizing spending is definitely a good thing. Always. But sometimes that isn't enough. It won't be in this case either.

 

Answering to the half of my argument won't be enough either.

 

Agreed. If Putin is removed from office, in any way, the change will be dramatic. My point is that even if he stays in power, it is very likely there are dramatic changes in store for Russia before 2018.

 

Dramatic changes before 2018? May be. Due to politics. Not A/K/B related, but those that can influence them, yes. But it's not a direct link.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. Despite what you've written, what you are saying is that even if it is "logical" for them to develop an APS that can defeat a top attack with a hard kill, that it might not even be trying to develop it? Or it is not technically capable of developing it? Or that it might be impractical to field? Or that it might not be able to afford it even if it can? If so, then I agree with you and therefore retract my objections to what I have termed your "faith based" belief system.

Sure, anything is possible. Doesn't mean that some things are more likely to happen than others. Arguments for such possibilities can be subjective and objective. I try to use objective ones.

 

Maybe because you arguing with me every time I introduce that possibility?

 

Well, because out of few possibilities, only one will turn out to be true, there's always a room for a debate, in attempt to figure out which one is correct beforehand.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Javelin active guidance system is constantly making corrections to the flight path based on a constantly updated imaging IR input. It makes sense then that it could be defeated by IR-blocking smoke directed upwards -if- the missile is detected early enough. Detect it too late, as in like just a couple meters from the top deck, and it makes no difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why Israel can do APS against top attacks, and Russia can't?

You're mixing technologies together. We were talking specifically about system which can selectively choose to defeat vertical *and* horizontal threats, which requires the vertical launch system the US is still struggling to develop. Based on the evidence we have, is there anything to suggest Russia has developed such a system? And I do mean evidence, not "logic".

 

Bringing up ridiculous claims is always good for a discussion!

I presented very real counter claims (LOSAT, Sgt York, G-11, etc) and you dismissed them, so I figured I'd try to go with something fun.

If you can show us a proof of concept video of teleporting APS (contrary to Quick Kill video), then I'd discuss such possibility.

No video yet, but:

http://www.cnet.com/news/scientists-achieve-reliable-quantum-teleportation-for-the-first-time/

 

 

Our previous debate ended by you not wanting to quote my words to compare them with your paraphrasing of my supposed position.

Ah, I figured you were still bent out of shape about that. Let me explain how paraphrasing in a debate works. A position is a sum of many statements. The more complex and multifaceted the position is, the more difficult it is to summarize it in exact language unless the side has done so directly. Paraphrasing is an acceptable alternative to literal quotation. In a debate setting, if one side does not agree with the characterization and/or conclusions made in the paraphrasing, then the side counters by making new statements to debunk/challenge/clarify the paraphrasing. You chose not to do that. I directly asked you what part of my paraphrasing you felt was wrong, you refused to do that too. So I dropped it because it was a pointless waste of time. As was responding to you calling me a "liar".

In short, I summarized your position and you had a chance to challenge it directly. You elected not to.

 

One can tie anything with anything in the world, if one wishes. I do not think that there's a direct connection between A/K/B and possible collapse of Russian govt.

On its own? No. But Putin has turned this project into far, far, far more than just vehicles. It has become a part of Putin's propaganda, as the parade clearly shows. Therefore, the project represents far more than a military expenditure to the government. The problem with bold symbols is sometimes people see the opposite of what is intended.

You do realize that I've specifically said "I did not say "they'll find a way"", right? My impression so far is that increase in absolute values is a correction due to currency exchange rate changes.

Then how do you explain the former economics minister, the one largely responsible for Russia's economic recovery, saying that even in the best of times Russia could not afford a 4% GDP military budget? See, that's the point you keep dancing around. Or do you think that this guy didn't think of inter budget cost savings when he made his conclusions?

The sad thing is that if Russia clamped down on corruption it would likely have the money it needs to finish many projects of A/K/B scale. But corruption can not be combatted because it is the glue that binds the Putin regime. Therefore, the corruption continues.

 

Yes, I do. The fact that I gave Russia a chance to show me that they can do a fair referendum doesn't mean I don't know our people.

Basically this discussion and the previous one are almost identical. I outlined a case, before the referendum, that based on the facts as we knew them and past history that the vote was going to be rigged. You dismissed my arguments with little more than faith based responses. The referendum took place and it was a fraud as I said it would be. So which one of us knew "your people" better? Or are you saying that I just made a lucky guess? Just like I made a lucky guess that the second there was a transition of power in Kiev towards the West that Russia would invade Crimea militarily and disrupt the east/south through armed proxies?

We find ourselves in the same situation. I am arguing that there's a lot of big troubles ahead for the A/K/B program in the years ahead, for a variety of specific reasons, and you are saying it will go according to plan without significant variation from either the timeline or the feature set.

 

LOL, if Russian propaganda says something, doesn't mean it's false. And again, this isn't the place for such discussions.

Russia also says it didn't invade Crimea, the referendum would be honest, it did not (and does not) supply arms/weapons to the separatists, it has no influence over the separatists, none of its soldiers have been deployed to Ukraine, none of died in Ukraine, it will only send in "humanitarian" convoys under Red Cross auspices, it will allow the border to be monitored, there is no reason to investigate Nemtsov's murder, NGOs are all working to spy on Russia, etc. Sorry, credibility matters. Russia, like it or not, has very little of that these days.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mixing technologies together. We were talking specifically about system which can selectively choose to defeat vertical *and* horizontal threats, which requires the vertical launch system the US is still struggling to develop. Based on the evidence we have, is there anything to suggest Russia has developed such a system? And I do mean evidence, not "logic".

The Quick Kill comparison may be apples to oranges. It appears that Quick Kill is an all in one system that launches vertical and then transitions to horizontal in mid-air as needed. Afganit has separate horizontal and vertical launchers so would not require the same level of aerial gymnastics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the Raytheon Quick Kill video just now reminded me of  dimly remembered SDI test footage. That was for the Lockheed Martin version of the MKV (Multiple Kill Vehicle). To me, the Quick Kill would appear to embody some of the concepts, but in a drastically down sized and feature limited form. See what you think.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Quick Kill comparison may be apples to oranges. It appears that Quick Kill is an all in one system that launches vertical and then transitions to horizontal in mid-air as needed. Afganit has separate horizontal and vertical launchers so would not require the same level of aerial gymnastics.

This conversation has had many twists and turns, so it is possible I am misunderstanding the basic issue as to why Quick Kill was brought up at all.

My understanding is that the T-14/Armata's APS tubes are fixed in the horizontal position only, with some sort of much smaller fixed vertical discharger probably containing smoke (i.e. not hard kill munitions). Therefore, in order to challenge a top attack with a hard kill the APS must employ a direction changing interceptor from its horizontal launchers. LnL is arguing, as I understand it, that since Quick Kill demonstrated that changing flight paths is possible, and Russia should obviously want a hard kill against top attacks, then Afghanit on the T-14/Armatra has path changing interceptors. If it doesn't, then it can challenge horizontal attacks only with hard kill and LnL's speculation is incorrect.

The T-15 may have a similar system as the T-14, but it might be lacking in some arc coverage (I'm not sure).

Kurganets has a similar system, but it appears to be less capable than what the T-14 has. It also appears that the APC version is less capable than the IFV version.

Boomerang has no APS defense.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to a more interesting question...

It does appear that the Javelin is vulnerable to a well timed IR smoke cloud when combined with immediate maneuvering. The problem with this is that if the vehicle is at a stand still at the time the APS system is triggered, there's no time to get the vehicle moving and therefore all it does make smoke before the vehicle is destroyed. Not very useful :D Physics dictates that an automatic computer controlled evasive maneuver system won't work either as the time it takes to get the vehicle out of its current spot is too slow no matter how it is initiated.

However, if the vehicle is moving rapidly at the time the APS engages then it is possible that the smoke and a very quick and significant course alteration could be enough to decrease the chances of being hit because the ability of Javelin to course correct at the last minute is quite limited. An automated system isn't necessary for this, but an attentive driver is.

If Russia is intending to have some sort of APS triggered evasive maneuver, it must be while the vehicle is already moving and oh-boy does that open a can of worms. As I stated previously, the AI needed to make a safe and yet effective course change is impractical IMHO. Yet a "good guess" that works "better than nothing" is possible, of course. Given that not evading a top attack missile is a likely kill of the vehicle, it's crew, and anybody standing anywhere near it... well, perhaps it's not really that bad a concept. It also gets around the whole "Boris dropped his heart monitor sensor" triggering a bad evasive maneuver because the trigger for the maneuver is coming from a specific threat sensed by the APS.

A "better something than nothing" system is definitely something I think is within Russia's technical capabilities and I don't think it would be that expensive to produce on top of existing APS and computer controlled driving. Even Battlefront could handle the coding for this type of AI as it isn't trying to be smart in relation to the conditions around it. In fact, conceptually the AI for this sort of evasive AI is vastly simpler than the one we have in CMBS already. Obviously there is a weight issue with the APS system, so it can't be used on all vehicles.

To sum up, I do think a "better something than nothing" approach has a chance of yielding more benefit than harm over a large average sample. I do think Russia is perfectly capable of fielding such a system if the APS and driving systems are in place and sufficiently performing their own tasks.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mixing technologies together. We were talking specifically about system which can selectively choose to defeat vertical *and* horizontal threats, which requires the vertical launch system the US is still struggling to develop.

 

Edited by akd
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mixing technologies together. We were talking specifically about system which can selectively choose to defeat vertical *and* horizontal threats, which requires the vertical launch system the US is still struggling to develop. Based on the evidence we have, is there anything to suggest Russia has developed such a system? And I do mean evidence, not "logic".

 

No, there's no such evidence. You did not answer the question, tho. Why Israel can make a good APS, and Russia can't? R&D costs only once, you just have to invent it and test it. Moreover, they've already done 2 iterations of Drozd, and 2 iterations of Arena. Afghanit is their 5th APS. How many countries have done so much R&D APS-wise so far?

 

I, on the other hand, can explain why Trophy is worse than Quick-Kill-like APS. Oversaturation danger. Trophy is limited by the amount of exploding elements available at the same time on a given sector, and by reload time. Firing 2-3 salvos of 2 missiles each (4-6 total), from a single direction, at the same instant, will most likely destroy the vehicle equipped with Trophy. Quick-Kill like APS can theoretically deal with that, if there's enough munitions present. It would be helluva loud and violent event, but theoretically it can deal with that. So Trophy is a limited concept, and separate available controllable munitions are a much better answer.

 

Also:

 

Helicopter APS. Reminds you anything?

 

15-0220_HAPS_KV.jpg?download=1

 

Helicopter%252520Active%252520Protection

 

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150224005136/en/Orbital-ATK-Completes-Key-Test-Helicopter-Active#.VWCQjUaEkdU

http://defense-update.com/20120427_rafael_develops_rpg_hard_kill_for_helicopters.html#.VWCQpUaEkdU

 

I presented very real counter claims (LOSAT, Sgt York, G-11, etc) and you dismissed them, so I figured I'd try to go with something fun.

 

I've never completely dismissed a possibility that their attempts will fail like these did.

 

 

I was expecting something like Battlestar Galactica footage, where they're jumping right before the missiles hit. Or, CMBS footage with vehicle disappearing from player's view due to FOW, and dodging a strike.

 

Ah, I figured you were still bent out of shape about that. Let me explain how paraphrasing in a debate works. A position is a sum of many statements. The more complex and multifaceted the position is, the more difficult it is to summarize it in exact language unless the side has done so directly. Paraphrasing is an acceptable alternative to literal quotation. In a debate setting, if one side does not agree with the characterization and/or conclusions made in the paraphrasing, then the side counters by making new statements to debunk/challenge/clarify the paraphrasing. You chose not to do that. I directly asked you what part of my paraphrasing you felt was wrong, you refused to do that too. So I dropped it because it was a pointless waste of time. As was responding to you calling me a "liar".

In short, I summarized your position and you had a chance to challenge it directly. You elected not to.

 

I wanted to laugh, but I get the impression that you were not joking. I've stated quite a few times that I did not said or meant anything like what you've attributed to me. Nothing like that, not even close. I did not refuse to show you which part was wrong. ALL of it was wrong. And why the hell should I challenge something I've never actually said? It is your statement that you're unable to back up.

 

At this point, I'm not even sure if you're not doing this intentionally (making silly statements on my behalf that is). If so, you're simply wasting time. Simple "yes or no" questions would've been much more constructive and less time consuming.

 

On its own? No. But Putin has turned this project into far, far, far more than just vehicles. It has become a part of Putin's propaganda, as the parade clearly shows. Therefore, the project represents far more than a military expenditure to the government. The problem with bold symbols is sometimes people see the opposite of what is intended.

 

This is why I've said that there's no direct link, but things might change dramatically if (when) Putin will go away. Or due to more global political reasons.

 

Then how do you explain the former economics minister, the one largely responsible for Russia's economic recovery, saying that even in the best of times Russia could not afford a 4% GDP military budget? See, that's the point you keep dancing around. Or do you think that this guy didn't think of inter budget cost savings when he made his conclusions?

The sad thing is that if Russia clamped down on corruption it would likely have the money it needs to finish many projects of A/K/B scale. But corruption can not be combatted because it is the glue that binds the Putin regime. Therefore, the corruption continues.

 

From what I've read in Russian, he was against decreasing social budgets to support military one. This is what he meant by "could not afford". And no, I don't dance around. First thing I did was, I went and read the original statements. Didn't see anything that says "they can't do it. fullstop." and moved on, because what I was already saying about budget cuts in other areas is the way it's happening and that's what the guy was against of.

 

Basically this discussion and the previous one are almost identical. I outlined a case, before the referendum, that based on the facts as we knew them and past history that the vote was going to be rigged. You dismissed my arguments with little more than faith based responses. The referendum took place and it was a fraud as I said it would be. So which one of us knew "your people" better? Or are you saying that I just made a lucky guess? Just like I made a lucky guess that the second there was a transition of power in Kiev towards the West that Russia would invade Crimea militarily and disrupt the east/south through armed proxies?

 

My previous answer still stands.

 

We find ourselves in the same situation. I am arguing that there's a lot of big troubles ahead for the A/K/B program in the years ahead, for a variety of specific reasons, and you are saying it will go according to plan without significant variation from either the timeline or the feature set.

 

No, I'm saying that they're doing everything to make it go as smooth as possible, and, therefore, have very good chances to succeed.

 

Russia also says it didn't invade Crimea, the referendum would be honest, it did not (and does not) supply arms/weapons to the separatists, it has no influence over the separatists, none of its soldiers have been deployed to Ukraine, none of died in Ukraine, it will only send in "humanitarian" convoys under Red Cross auspices, it will allow the border to be monitored, there is no reason to investigate Nemtsov's murder, NGOs are all working to spy on Russia, etc. Sorry, credibility matters. Russia, like it or not, has very little of that these days.

 

My previous answer still stands.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trophy apparently can, although it aims the munition mechanically.  Also, I think you are misconstruing the Quick Kill issue.  Today it appears to do what it claims.  That it is not deployed on US tanks today is not necessarily because it does not work.

I don't have detailed knowledge of Quick Kill, but from the little I've dug into it doesn't appear ready for prime time even if there was a blank check handed over to Raytheon. Do you have better info on status?

As for working or not working, my guess is that it does work at least in principle. But just like everything I've said about Armata, I feel the same way about Quick Kill. Until there's ample evidence that it's ready for fielding, it's still an R&D project (best case) or a smoke and mirrors show (like Sgt York was). Or it could be something inbetween, like Osprey where it's put into service but it takes a while longer to work the bugs out of it before it is really working as it should.

 

 

We have seen patents that might be related, and broad descriptions of the new system giving some basic parameters.  Parallel technology is a reasonable way to evaluate what capabilities Russia might be pursuing with their new system, and a way to evaluate conclusions such as that horizontally-oriented launchers necessarily cannot engage a vertical threat.  No one has claimed Afghanit is a fully-developed and operational system, and arguing against that is a bit of a strawman.

Oh, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply saying that I have a large amount of skepticism towards large, expensive, high tech military projects that are breaking molds. Until the project has been pushed into the field and is shown tow work as advertised, I will remain skeptical that it will get to that point. Especially when the timeframe is short and the financial constraints significant.

 

This idea of automatic evasion is just speculation here, I think.   And everything we know about automation in Armata is highly speculative and based on articles where a lot is lost in translation.  The latest information I saw indicated that the vehicle is built with the architecture necessary for some degree of remote and automated operation in the future, nothing more.  This seems reasonable for a newly-designed armored vehicle.

For sure I was speculating because, in theory, such a system coupled with IR smoke could offer a meaningful defense against guided top attack munitions such as Javelin.

 

A quick IR-obscurant screen over the vehicle alone would surely cause problems for all sorts of guided munitions.

Compared to no smoke at all? Sure. That's what I was saying above. At least for a moving vehicle. Against Javelin, I don't think a stationary vehicle stands much of a chance of confusing Javelin because when it loses lock it goes where it thinks the vehicle is. So if you toss a bunch of smoke above a stationary vehicle, chances are Javelin won't be significantly affected. For less sophisticated IR guided weapons it's possibly a different story.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there's no such evidence. You did not answer the question, tho. Why Israel can make a good APS, and Russia can't? R&D costs only once, you just have to invent it and test it. Moreover, they've already done 2 iterations of Drozd, and 2 iterations of Arena. Afghanit is their 5th APS. How many countries have done so much R&D APS-wise so far?

I thought I answered that before, several times? In theory there's no reason why Russia couldn't do it provided it is, in fact, practical with current and near term technology. I have absolutely no idea if that's the case with such a system or not. The Quick Kill video doesn't answer that question other than at least part of the technical aspects do appear practical.

Whether Russia can afford the R&D and/or can get it done within the next 3-4 years is a separate issue. Whether it can afford to purchase them in a meaningful way after developing it is yet another question.

 

I, on the other hand, can explain why Trophy is worse than Quick-Kill-like APS. Oversaturation danger. Trophy is limited by the amount of exploding elements available at the same time on a given sector, and by reload time. Firing 2-3 salvos of 2 missiles each (4-6 total), from a single direction, at the same instant, will most likely destroy the vehicle equipped with Trophy. Quick-Kill like APS can theoretically deal with that, if there's enough munitions present. It would be helluva loud and violent event, but theoretically it can deal with that. So Trophy is a limited concept, and separate available controllable munitions are a much better answer.

Sure, but I was never arguing it isn't.

 

Also:

 

Helicopter APS. Reminds you anything?

Yup, it sure does. And if the Armata were an Israeli tank I'd say 1+1=2. However, we don't know what is on Armata. For all we know it's a mockup box, correct?

 

I've never completely dismissed a possibility that their attempts will fail like these did.

Then why the heck didn't you say this the first two dozen times I pushed you on this exact point? This has been the thing I've been trying to pry out of you since we started this debate at the beginning of this thread! Talk about wasting our collective time!

 

I was expecting something like Battlestar Galactica footage, where they're jumping right before the missiles hit. Or, CMBS footage with vehicle disappearing from player's view due to FOW, and dodging a strike.

Not there quite yet :D

 

 

I wanted to laugh, but I get the impression that you were not joking. I've stated quite a few times that I did not said or meant anything like what you've attributed to me. Nothing like that, not even close. I did not refuse to show you which part was wrong. ALL of it was wrong. And why the hell should I challenge something I've never actually said? It is your statement that you're unable to back up.

 

At this point, I'm not even sure if you're not doing this intentionally (making silly statements on my behalf that is). If so, you're simply wasting time. Simple "yes or no" questions would've been much more constructive and less time consuming.

More insults from you. Bravo. For a man with a fairly thin skin, you really don't mind dishing it out do you?

I read all your posts and what I summarized is what I took away from those posts. I am NOT the only one who holds a similar feeling about what you have been saying. So when you say "that's not my point at all, but I'm not going to tell you what my point is" then we have ourselves a communications problem big time. If someone has completely misinterpreted your point, then (like it or not) it is on your shoulders to correct it. That is how debates work. Or do you think that someone who has genuinely misunderstood your point is going to magically understand it simply because you say "that's not my point"?

 

This is why I've said that there's no direct link, but things might change dramatically if (when) Putin will go away. Or due to more global political reasons.

There could be a direct link, but not an exclusive link. If Putin's regime collapses because it prioritized military spending over civilian spending, and A/K/B is an important part of that spending, then it would be a part of the regime's downfall. But not exclusively since A/K/B itself is not a large and expensive enough program to have ruined the perception of the regime's legitimacy.

As I said, A/K/B is now an official symbol of both Putin and his priorities. If the average Russian is barely managing to survive and he sees a parade full of $8m vehicles... well, symbols matter more than balance sheets in such cases.

A domestic US example... when the economy here is bad people complain about the amount of money spent on foreign aid. But if you look at foreign aid in relation to domestic spending, it's miniscule. But when an American family is being evicted from their house, hearing that another couple of Billion are being spent on aid to a foreign country does tend to be upsetting.

From what I've read in Russian, he was against decreasing social budgets to support military one. This is what he meant by "could not afford". And no, I don't dance around. First thing I did was, I went and read the original statements. Didn't see anything that says "they can't do it. fullstop." and moved on, because what I was already saying about budget cuts in other areas is the way it's happening and that's what the guy was against of.

You are not understanding what "afford" means. It does not mean that the money isn't available if other things are cut. The US could theoretically spend another $1 Trillion a year on its military if it wanted to. The budget is large enough to provide the revenue. But it absolutely can not "afford" to do it because the government has many other obligations to fulfill and those obligations could not be if the money was shifted.

So what he's talking about, as any economist would say, is that Russia can not sustain military spending in excess of 4%. That is the same thing as saying Russia can not "afford" it.

  

No, I'm saying that they're doing everything to make it go as smooth as possible, and, therefore, have very good chances to succeed.

 

I agree with the first part, but I do not think the second part is justifiable. There's too many things that could go wrong under the current and near future circumstances to have such a high degree of confidence.

 

My previous answer still stands.

And mine does too. Specifically, credibility matters and Russia is very short on credibility these days.

While I agree that not 100% of everything that the Kremlin utters is total fiction, pretty much everything having to do with the Ukraine conflict so far has been. Because of that the bar for Russia proving it's case is vastly higher than the "evidence" it's shown so far. That evidence, in my view, is no better than the obviously faked photos of a Ukrainian SU-25 shooting down MH-17.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I answered that before, several times? In theory there's no reason why Russia couldn't do it provided it is, in fact, practical with current and near term technology. I have absolutely no idea if that's the case with such a system or not. The Quick Kill video doesn't answer that question other than at least part of the technical aspects do appear practical.

Whether Russia can afford the R&D and/or can get it done within the next 3-4 years is a separate issue. Whether it can afford to purchase them in a meaningful way after developing it is yet another question.

 

So, in theory, Afghanit may turn out to be hard-kill top-attack capable, yes?

 

Yup, it sure does. And if the Armata were an Israeli tank I'd say 1+1=2. However, we don't know what is on Armata. For all we know it's a mockup box, correct?

 

Well, so far I've seen it being able to drive (sometimes with problems) and turn its turret, so it's definitely more than a mockup box at this point. Moreover, APS munitions that we're seeing are in fact inert mockups, because it's a parade, and they don't bring ammo there. Whether or not specific systems are operational, yeah, that's a big and open question.

 

Then why the heck didn't you say this the first two dozen times I pushed you on this exact point? This has been the thing I've been trying to pry out of you since we started this debate at the beginning of this thread! Talk about wasting our collective time!

 

Like I've said in my previous post, ask "yes or no" question next time.

 

More insults from you. Bravo. For a man with a fairly thin skin, you really don't mind dishing it out do you?

I read all your posts and what I summarized is what I took away from those posts. I am NOT the only one who holds a similar feeling about what you have been saying. So when you say "that's not my point at all, but I'm not going to tell you what my point is" then we have ourselves a communications problem big time. If someone has completely misinterpreted your point, then (like it or not) it is on your shoulders to correct it. That is how debates work. Or do you think that someone who has genuinely misunderstood your point is going to magically understand it simply because you say "that's not my point"?

 

Oh, actually, every time I make sarcastic statements that are intentionally false, I construct them in a way that closely follows the logic (or even exact words) of a person that I am talking to. Therefore, if a person won't be able to understand such sarcasm, and suddenly says "I've never said/meant that", I would be able to show his previous words and draw a logical line between them and my sarcastic statement. So far, this tactic never failed me. Your tactic of making silly statements on someone's behalf that cannot be linked with actual words of that person is a road to nowhere, and therefore it did not work on me so far.

 

So, if you want your tactic to work, use my actual words or something similar to what I've said, that follows the logic of what I've said. If you do not understand what my point is, then say so. Or ask "yes or no" questions. Making silly disconnected statements just won't work.

 

There could be a direct link, but not an exclusive link. If Putin's regime collapses because it prioritized military spending over civilian spending, and A/K/B is an important part of that spending, then it would be a part of the regime's downfall. But not exclusively since A/K/B itself is not a large and expensive enough program to have ruined the perception of the regime's legitimacy.

As I said, A/K/B is now an official symbol of both Putin and his priorities. If the average Russian is barely managing to survive and he sees a parade full of $8m vehicles... well, symbols matter more than balance sheets in such cases.

A domestic US example... when the economy here is bad people complain about the amount of money spent on foreign aid. But if you look at foreign aid in relation to domestic spending, it's miniscule. But when an American family is being evicted from their house, hearing that another couple of Billion are being spent on aid to a foreign country does tend to be upsetting.

 

Complaining is one thing. And the extent at which it might work to change govt's behavior ranges from country to country. In Russia, complaining might and work on mundane level problems, but definitely not on this kind of level. This is why I said that you obviously do not live in Russia or Ukraine to know people and how it works.

 

You are not understanding what "afford" means. It does not mean that the money isn't available if other things are cut. The US could theoretically spend another $1 Trillion a year on its military if it wanted to. The budget is large enough to provide the revenue. But it absolutely can not "afford" to do it because the government has many other obligations to fulfill and those obligations could not be if the money was shifted.

So what he's talking about, as any economist would say, is that Russia can not sustain military spending in excess of 4%. That is the same thing as saying Russia can not "afford" it.

 

Yeah, and those obligations get cut somewhat. And Russian govt can sustain population's discontent with such decisions (because it's a corrupt authoritarian regime). Therefore it can afford their current plan.

 

I agree with the first part, but I do not think the second part is justifiable. There's too many things that could go wrong under the current and near future circumstances to have such a high degree of confidence.

 

Well, that's because you don't think that they can afford their current plan. I do think they can (as stated above), therefore I have a higher level of confidence than you.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites
We have seen patents that might be related, and broad descriptions of the new system giving some basic parameters.

 

Yes yes yes! I've totally forgot about it! I just went and read it again and it makes A LOT of sense now! Compared to when I read it the first time, back in a day.

 

In short, it explains that the kill munition would be able to move at speeds of 2-3km/s, be able to defeat APFSDS rounds, and have a kill sector of 120-160 degrees upon explosion. It does say that it's based upon a controllable (in 2 axis) base. I did not get it before I read further. Later it says that the munition has several ignition/exhaust points, which are used to correct movement direction (basically, steer). So "controllable base" is the munition itself, not a Trophy-like controllable, moving pad.

 

So yeah, there's the patent for a steerable munition that is aimed to deal with tank rounds. I correct my previous statement - that's the evidence to suggest that they went Quick-Kill route. And they want it to work against tank rounds, which explains T-14 design.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting vid that shows the level of modern Russian wheeled light armored vehicles. Typhoon family, both K and U, including K 4x4, that does 120 kph on a road.

 

@ 16:30-17:40 - ceramic plate test vs 14.5mm. Similar or identical is used on Boomerang, as I understand.

 

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, looks very professional and time consuming, for a fan-made video. One thing is most likely wrong is a mention of coax MG next to the main gun, in the little gap.

 

In the mean time, Khlopotov published T-14 and T-15 specs. My guess is that this info will soon arise on UVZ's main site and he got it first from his contacts there. T-15 is said to have 2+9 seating config (tho 3+8 should sound more logical). MOUT kit for T-14 is mentioned (53 t vs 48t for base model). Multispectral smoke and "Overhead half-sphere protection" are mentioned too. 32+8=40 rounds for T-14 main gun. Sizes are huge, 3.3 and 3.5 meters in height, 9.5 and 10.8 m in length. Looks legit.

 

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post_45.html

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/05/15.html

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, the overhead soft kill APS is linked to the so-called automated driver system so that when the radar detects an incoming top attack projectile it automatically swivels the dispensers, fires the aps, and reverses so the projectile wont continue and hit where the vehicle once was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, the overhead soft kill APS is linked to the so-called automated driver system so that when the radar detects an incoming top attack projectile it automatically swivels the dispensers, fires the aps, and reverses so the projectile wont continue and hit where the vehicle once was.

 

Well,

the idea is very good, but I see a limitation there, and it's a time constraint. While we all see APS systems racting very quickly, a tank movement might not be so fast. I can see that the automatic movement of the tank in certain cases is feasible but in the time laps of an "APS action", no I don't really see a tank reacting fast enough to place the right gear, start giving gas, the sprocket weel moves, it takes too much time compared to the fraction of time an APS works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was simply an obscurant though, then the speed and trajectory of the javelin missile would let it just follow through and hit the tank anyway. it would be going that fast that by the time the tracker and the obscurant have been fired, the angle would just carry the missile on to where the vehicle was anyway unless it moves itself out of the way. We are talking a very slim envelope for the missile to be spoofed by the aps and lock onto a different target instead otherwise it would hit the tank anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in theory, Afghanit may turn out to be hard-kill top-attack capable, yes?

Sure, in theory. There are probably a couple different approaches in R&D world wide that could theoretically lead to a hard kill against a top attack. Certainly many nations are working on this problem because it's obviously needed in the modern battlefield. Russia, of course, is one of the countries most interested in the technology since it's weaponry (including exports) are the most likely to be killed by such a weapon.

As I said, it is logical that Russia is attempting to have a hard kill APS against top attack. What isn't logical is to conclude that since they want it to happen that it will happen by 2019, it will work as advertised, and it can be affordably produced and maintained.

 

 

Well, so far I've seen it being able to drive (sometimes with problems) and turn its turret, so it's definitely more than a mockup box at this point. Moreover, APS munitions that we're seeing are in fact inert mockups, because it's a parade, and they don't bring ammo there. Whether or not specific systems are operational, yeah, that's a big and open question.

No, I meant specifically about the APS boxes in the rear of the turret, not the vehicle itself. Meaning, just because there's a metal box with some round shiny things in it doesn't mean much at this point. They could be mockups/placeholders for a system that hasn't yet been developed.

 

Like I've said in my previous post, ask "yes or no" question next time.

Oh, I'm sure that I did because that's generally what I do when someone is dancing around a particular point. But it's a waste of time to go back and check.

 

 

Oh, actually, every time I make sarcastic statements that are intentionally false, I construct them in a way that closely follows the logic (or even exact words) of a person that I am talking to. Therefore, if a person won't be able to understand such sarcasm, and suddenly says "I've never said/meant that", I would be able to show his previous words and draw a logical line between them and my sarcastic statement. So far, this tactic never failed me. Your tactic of making silly statements on someone's behalf that cannot be linked with actual words of that person is a road to nowhere, and therefore it did not work on me so far.

 

So, if you want your tactic to work, use my actual words or something similar to what I've said, that follows the logic of what I've said. If you do not understand what my point is, then say so. Or ask "yes or no" questions. Making silly disconnected statements just won't work.

As I said, the "tactic" I used is standard debate procedure because finding a direct quote to represent a very large and multi facetted point of view is almost impossible to do. Which is why the technique of paraphrasing a position is done *all the time* in debates. You don't have to like it.

 

Complaining is one thing. And the extent at which it might work to change govt's behavior ranges from country to country. In Russia, complaining might and work on mundane level problems, but definitely not on this kind of level.

You misunderstood. Let me try again.

Complaining and bad economic conditions do not necessarily change governments. If it did most governments would collapse every month or two (like Italy :)). So obviously there needs to be a combination of things for a change in government to happen. However, when a government is toppled by the people (as opposed to an internal coup) it is always preceded by complaints and almost always by bad economic conditions. Which means for Putin to have any threat to his rule there must be complaints and bad economic conditions for that to happen. Current levels of Russian complaints and economic hardships aren't even close to being enough to cause Putin more than a little trouble. For now at least.

If Putin continues to cut domestic spending and clamp down on personal freedoms, while at the same time not doing anything meaningful about Russia's longstanding problems of corruption and top-down economic environment, the "complaints" will get worse as will economic conditions. The more Russians see the military spending robbing them of their pensions, education, food, etc. then the "complaints" will be more focused.

Ukraine's government collapsed in 2014 because of "complaining" and bad economic circumstances. It obviously took a long time and a whole new generation to make such a big change, but it did happen. In theory it could happen in Russia as well, which is why Putin is putting so much effort into preventing it. The war in Ukraine is mostly a product of this thinking. A stable and economically improving Russian speaking democracy on Russia's borders is the real threat to Putin's regime, not NATO.

How much "complaining" will it take to collapse Putin's regime? A ton. In fact, so much that I don't think it will happen. Not without a massive economic crisis, which is quite possibly on the way for the 2017-2020 timeframe. Also possible is an internal coup because some faction senses Putin's public support is weak enough that they can get away with it.

 

This is why I said that you obviously do not live in Russia or Ukraine to know people and how it works.

Although I obviously do not live in Russia or Ukraine, I do understand the larger forces at work there to a fair degree. It allowed me to predict Ukraine's eventual change in government, as well as Russia's reaction to it. I also understood the seizure of Crimea and the faked referendum. Though for sure I've been surprised by many things, mostly because I gave Putin's pragmatism far more credit than he deserved.

 

Yeah, and those obligations get cut somewhat. And Russian govt can sustain population's discontent with such decisions (because it's a corrupt authoritarian regime). Therefore it can afford their current plan.

You are changing the definition of "afford". This might be a language/cultural issue. Here is an official English definition of the word:

" to be able to do (something) without having problems or being seriously harmed"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/afford

 

The former economics minister, and world wide examples, show that 4%+ GDP spending is not sustainable for a peacetime economy. The opposite of sustainable is unsustainable. This is the definition:

"Not able to be maintained at the current rate or level"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/unsustainable

Which is why economists, like the former economics minister, is saying that 4%+ GDP defense spending is neither sustainable nor affordable.

 

Well, that's because you don't think that they can afford their current plan. I do think they can (as stated above), therefore I have a higher level of confidence than you.

Your position, basically, is that all the economists are wrong. Including the one responsible for Russia's major economic recovery. You are free to hold such an opinion if you wish, but I don't find it a very credible one. For a year or two, maybe. But we're talking about 10-15 years.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...