New Details on Russia’s T-95 Tank Emerge

[Baff1 0]

I don't see a target for the helicopter either.

The tank doesn't demask unless it has seen a target it can engage. The helicopters can hang out behind the tree line until they run out of fuel. The tank can hang out in a cow shed indefinitely.

That's a stalemate.

The helicopters however, do see a target tank on their radar. But it's a Shtora decoy. Helicopter bait.

Without visual confirmation they will never know that they are wasting their their ammo on decoys

At least one of those helicopters has to partially demask to use the radar, both to acquire target, and again it check it has been destroyed.

So if they are solely relying on their radars for targetting, they may tip their hand and even expose themselves to return fire.

Further to this, the decoy could be placed 5 kilometres behind the masked tank, so the treeline the Apaches are using to mask from, are overlooked by the tanks firing position. resulting in the Apaches, not being masked at all, but instead being sitting ducks. Just hovering in their best shoot me I'm an easy target mode.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Baff1

[Sekra 10]

Russians have new 152mm SAM missile - which the T95 tank have auto loader , so loads very quickly

Its not about the speed of the loading, its about the fact that the missile does not fit inside the turret at all. It REALLY doesn't make any sense to fire a AA missile from the tube of a tank. I could understand an external launcher or similar but launched from the tube? Come on that's just ridiculous.

[Baff1 0]

I don't know that it has to be a very big AA missile to use against helicopters. Would a small one be enough?

Couldn't it for example be shorter and fatter as opposed to longer and thinner?

The 125mm ATGM clearly worked. What is the difference going to be for AA... fragmentation warhead not HEAT? Maybe a different guidance system?

And that the ordinace can be longer, thicker and heavier.

Perhaps no diference at all?

Edited July 7, 2011 by Baff1

[Sekra 10]

Well like it was posted earlier here (which I read only after posting my last comment naturally) even the smallest of russian manpad missiles are 1.4meters long. I really doubt the russians would spend any of their money or effort for a system like this when they have awesome AA weaponry already, namely the Shilka and Tunguska.

---------- Post added at 04:59 ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 ----------

The 125mm ATGM clearly worked. What is the difference going to be for AA... fragmentation warhead not HEAT? Maybe a different guidance system?

The main purpose of the tank is to fight other tanks. I see no reason why a ATGM doesnt make sense in a tank. Specially the part where it was already said that the ATGM used in the T90's are split in 2 parts.

Now for a tank tube launched AA missile they would have to develop a completely new system, create completely new logistics chain for it and train their tank crews to use yet another hi-tech system. As far as I'm aware one of the main design philosophies of the russians is to make weaponry even conscript farmers can use.

If they're going to use manpads missiles, why not use the cheaper manpads then in the first place?

[Baff1 0]

But given that they already make barrel launched ATGM's in a variety of calibres, how much extra money is it?

They must know a lot about this already.

Do they really need to invent a new system, do they not know how to make AA guidances already?

Could I not equally say... they just have to combine two existing and well used systems.

Also, is it cheaper to load a tank with an AA missile or provide a Shilka to hang out with every tank?

I certainly think with some countries focus on tank killing helicopters that more AA capability would always be welcomed by tank crews. Flexibility is key to survivability.

I don't expect we talking about AA weaponry as awesome as Shilka and Tunguska, but something better than a 50. cal machine gun and flak shells could be pretty serious.

I think the Russian military docrine has changed towards a smaller higher tech professional army.

But even so, if they were happy to train conscripts to fire barrel launched guided ATGM's, how much more training is it going to be to add an AA missile.

In the end those tanks cost a lot of money. An AA missile is a small price to pay to protect that investment.

but er. It's all just hypothetical at the moment. They haven't made one yet. So best I don't get too carried away!

Edited July 7, 2011 by Baff1

[max power 21]

Do you have any information on what the radar decoy is? Some kind of towed device? Chaff? A large metal object?

I think the hellfire L is a radar targetted, terminal infrared homing missile, but I'm not certain.

edit: No. It seems like it's radar/gps targetted, terminal active radar homing missile. It also seems like it has an emitter seeking anti radiation mode.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Max Power

[Baff1 0]

It's large metal object.

You can see it in one of the Youtubes I posted earlier.

There is a heat source decoy also.

Shtora is pretty comprehensive on the countermeasures. They have all the usual guidance methods catered for. (I don't know how effectively of course).

This isn't it, it's a naval radar decoy, but the shape is about the same .

This one is inflatable.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Baff1

[maturin 12]

Lol, I hope it's something more advanced than that. People buy those things at marine supplies stores for $14.99 and hoist them up in the rigging of their yachts.

[Baff1 0]

Way, waaay more advanced.

They have painted it green.

I expect the heat decoy is just a parafin stove.

(And by the look of the photo in the OP, the 152 mm gun is a just a telegraph pole).

That sort of stuff works though, I saw a nice BBC show, where the guy with the massive tache, "Dick" made some decoys out of a parafin stove and some cardboard boxes covered in tin foil. It fooled our Tornado crews. All their instrumentation read "tank".

He said that is what he thought had happened in the Balklans campaign when the number of tanks reported killed by aircrews, wildly didn't match the number of burnt out tanks they ever found.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Baff1

[max power 21]

Oh yeah. It's a retroreflector. I should have anticipated that.

The MMW radar is apparently an imaging radar. I don't know if it would be fooled by that or not. To be honest, I recall a discussion on these forums where some people were discussing whether a Longbow radar was a waste of fuel or not in Afghanistan. Someone pointed out that it is an imaging radar and they can use it for surveillance. Since then I've been wondering exactly what an imaging radar is.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Max Power

[Baff1 0]

It plots a 3D map of the area it scans.

Radar resolution is dependant on aerial length. I have a hard time thinking that an Apache has a physically bigger radar than a Tornado, but who knows?

It is supposed to be able to tell the difference between a tank and lorry.

Here is an article on some rather more sophisticated looking inflatable Russian decoys.

See the link for pics and Iplayer movies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11511886

"The Russian military is using a cunning plan to deceive the enemy and save money at the same time: inflatable weapons.

They look just like real ones: they are easy to transport and quick to deploy.

You name it, the Russian army is blowing it up: from pretend tanks to entire radar stations.

The decoys are a hundred times cheaper than the real thing, which means Moscow will save a lot of money by blowing up its own weapons.

On the edge of Moscow, two men carry a black duffle bag into a field, then drop it on the ground.

When they open the bag, they take out a large sheet of plastic. It looks like a tent or a tarpaulin.

In fact, it's the Russian army's latest strategic weapon. It doesn't need ammunition - just air.

On goes the pump, in goes the air and the plastic sheet begins to rise and take shape.

A turret appears, then out pops a long plastic gun barrel. This is an inflatable Russian tank.

State-of-the-art

When the men pump up their next piece of plastic, this one expands into a S-300 rocket launcher, complete with giant truck and inflatable rockets. It is a cross between a ballistic missile and a bouncy castle.

And waiting to be blown up are inflatable MiG fighter jets - even entire Russian radar stations.

The inflatables are stitched together at a former hot-air balloon factory

These state-of-the-art stand-ins are among the most advanced military decoys in the world - much lighter, more manageable and mobile than the rubber versions used in World War Two.

What they lack in firepower, they make up for in flexibility: they are light and can be deployed quickly to deceive the enemy.

They are also very realistic. They are made of a special material that tricks enemy radar and thermal imaging into thinking they are real weapons.

The inflatables are stitched together at a former hot-air balloon factory.

"I'm proud to be making entire rocket-launchers and tanks for our armed forces," says Lena, who is stitching a surface-to-air missile system.

"When you finish sewing them and you watch them being filled with air, it's so satisfying."

(I'd quite like an inflatable MIG, I wonder how much they go for!).

Edited July 7, 2011 by Baff1

[roberthammer 582]

Well like it was posted earlier here (which I read only after posting my last comment naturally) even the smallest of russian manpad missiles are 1.4meters long. I really doubt the russians would spend any of their money or effort for a system like this when they have awesome AA weaponry already, namely the Shilka and Tunguska.

---------- Post added at 04:59 ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 ----------

The main purpose of the tank is to fight other tanks. I see no reason why a ATGM doesnt make sense in a tank. Specially the part where it was already said that the ATGM used in the T90's are split in 2 parts.

Now for a tank tube launched AA missile they would have to develop a completely new system, create completely new logistics chain for it and train their tank crews to use yet another hi-tech system. As far as I'm aware one of the main design philosophies of the russians is to make weaponry even conscript farmers can use.

If they're going to use manpads missiles, why not use the cheaper manpads then in the first place?

The T95 won't be used as main SAM tank or SAM system

It is just simple - if there is not any AA support around , then the tank is able to launch small AA missile from the cannon and take out helicopter/plane

System is very similiar to the ATGM , so it is not so difficult

Edited July 7, 2011 by RobertHammer

[solidsnake2384 10]

It plots a 3D map of the area it scans.

Radar resolution is dependant on aerial length. I have a hard time thinking that an Apache has a physically bigger radar than a Tornado, but who knows?

It is supposed to be able to tell the difference between a tank and lorry.

Here is an article on some rather more sophisticated looking inflatable Russian decoys.

See the link for pics and Iplayer movies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11511886

"The Russian military is using a cunning plan to deceive the enemy and save money at the same time: inflatable weapons.

They look just like real ones: they are easy to transport and quick to deploy.

You name it, the Russian army is blowing it up: from pretend tanks to entire radar stations.

The decoys are a hundred times cheaper than the real thing, which means Moscow will save a lot of money by blowing up its own weapons.

On the edge of Moscow, two men carry a black duffle bag into a field, then drop it on the ground.

When they open the bag, they take out a large sheet of plastic. It looks like a tent or a tarpaulin.

In fact, it's the Russian army's latest strategic weapon. It doesn't need ammunition - just air.

On goes the pump, in goes the air and the plastic sheet begins to rise and take shape.

A turret appears, then out pops a long plastic gun barrel. This is an inflatable Russian tank.

State-of-the-art

When the men pump up their next piece of plastic, this one expands into a S-300 rocket launcher, complete with giant truck and inflatable rockets. It is a cross between a ballistic missile and a bouncy castle.

And waiting to be blown up are inflatable MiG fighter jets - even entire Russian radar stations.

The inflatables are stitched together at a former hot-air balloon factory

These state-of-the-art stand-ins are among the most advanced military decoys in the world - much lighter, more manageable and mobile than the rubber versions used in World War Two.

What they lack in firepower, they make up for in flexibility: they are light and can be deployed quickly to deceive the enemy.

They are also very realistic. They are made of a special material that tricks enemy radar and thermal imaging into thinking they are real weapons.

The inflatables are stitched together at a former hot-air balloon factory.

"I'm proud to be making entire rocket-launchers and tanks for our armed forces," says Lena, who is stitching a surface-to-air missile system.

"When you finish sewing them and you watch them being filled with air, it's so satisfying."

Sounds like something the Onion would make up. Still, that seems pretty cool.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Still contracts for defense orders aren't signed yet. Too much corruption, bureaucracy or just always faithful "Budjet budjet"... :D

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110707/165076664.html

RobertHammer don't you think that MBT's in ground combat should better rely on air support or anti-air vehicles like Tunguska / Pantsyr? Guess its not that simple for tank crews to search, track, target and shoot down aircraft while fighting enemy ground forces.

[Baff1 0]

In some of the Israeli wars... their airpower was unable to deploy against enemy tanks because their enemies had loads of SAMS's deployed.

Once the enemies tanks broke out from under their AA umbrella however, the IAF smashed them.

Mobile AA systems, I think that is a lot of trouble for an airforce.

We saw in the Gulf wars, how the static AA's were defeated, by either stealth bombers, or Apache's flying NAP or special forces, but mobile ones, you can't plan for.

I think mobile AA systems are the greatest threat to an airforce today.