New Details on Russia’s T-95 Tank Emerge

[NoRailgunner 0]

RobertHammer can you show us some new updates/links + facts about the new 152mm SAM missile for T95's, the new T95 autoloader and latest version of Arena system for T95?

[roberthammer 582]

RobertHammer can you show us some new updates/links + facts about the new 152mm SAM missile for T95's, the new T95 autoloader and latest version of Arena system for T95?

That's Top Secret - even soldiers don't know much about , most of them only know how it looks

Edited July 5, 2011 by RobertHammer

[Baff1 0]

WHAT?

The hellfire's way too small and too fast a target. Not to mention the fact that tanks can't elevate their barrels high enough to hit that.

LMAO they don't use their guns, they use their anti-missile systems.

(It's not just helicopters that have radar).

Here is what they looked like 10 years ago. The radar is the part sticking up like a little tower, and the rectangular plates around the rim of the turret are the fragmentation countermeasures that get fired to intercept and destroy incoming missiles.

You can see it in action in the videos below.

http://youtu.be/RyfnAbfAOd8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h4uUfYnXUw&feature=related

Edited July 5, 2011 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

Can it protect against top-attack missiles?

Just asking.

[solidsnake2384 10]

If so then we need some new Javelins.....

[maturin 12]

Pretty sure Arena can't even stop missiles aimed at the rear turret where it is most needed.

Presumably by the time this tank is produced canceled by budget cuts, Arena will be more advanced.

[Baff1 0]

Can it protect against top-attack missiles?

Just asking.

I've never heard of Javelin specifically being mentioned, but they do talk about it as protection against air launched missiles. Which strike me as top attacks.

I see no reason why it should have more trouble with a Javelin than it would an RPG. I think the decider is missile speed, not angle of attack.

Pretty much all anti-missile systems fall down against hypersonic warheads.

That all said I haven't seen any footage of it being tested against attacks from above. Seeing would be believing.

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------

Pretty sure Arena can't even stop missiles aimed at the rear turret where it is most needed.

Presumably by the time this tank is produced canceled by budget cuts, Arena will be more advanced.

Arena has been around for 20 years now. I think advancements have been in reaction times. The speed of the projectile it can disrupt.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that having gone to all the trouble to invent it and fit it to their tanks, that the one part of the tank that "most needs" it's protection, is going to be the one part of the tank that most has it.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Baff1

[maturin 12]

The rear turret is the one part of the tank that is helpless against even the oldest AT weapons, and is the prize target for anyone armed with one. It isn't feasible to make the armor thick here, and ERA offers an insufficient boost, meaning that the only option is a hard-kill system. They really should add 60 more degrees to the coverage. Other parts of the tank have multiple lines of defense, so the rear should have at least some.

And given that most air-to-ground missiles are going to be launched from a distance by low-flying choppers, the angle of incidence is going to almost as low as your average ground-launched missile. In order to attack from 45 degrees (the usual angle of the Javelin and Hellfire), a chopper would have to be multiple kilometers in the air, which is suicidal. Therefore, aerial protection does not mean top-attack. It does mean it can handle something faster than SACLOS ATGMs, though.

Edited July 6, 2011 by maturin

[jakerod 254]

The rear turret is the one part of the tank that is helpless against even the oldest AT weapons, and is the prize target for anyone armed with one. It isn't feasible to make the armor thick here, and ERA offers an insufficient boost, meaning that the only option is a hard-kill system. They really should add 60 more degrees to the coverage. Other parts of the tank have multiple lines of defense, so the rear should have at least some.

And given that most air-to-ground missiles are going to be launched from a distance by low-flying choppers, the angle of incidence is going to almost as low as your average ground-launched missile. In order to attack from 45 degrees (the usual angle of the Javelin and Hellfire), a chopper would have to be multiple kilometers in the air, which is suicidal. Therefore, aerial protection does not mean top-attack. It does mean it can handle something faster than SACLOS ATGMs, though.

Hellfires pop up when they are fired. There is a graph somewhere showing the elevation of both hellfire firing modes.

[maturin 12]

Hellfires pop up when they are fired. There is a graph somewhere showing the elevation of both hellfire firing modes.

I know, and most air-to-ground missiles don't do that, so far as I know. So we can speculate that the stated ability to counter AGMs does not include anti-top attack capability.

Another question worth asking is how all types of hard kill system will handle weapons like the latest TOW. Since this missile charts a course that will overfly the tank by several meters, the system may confuse it for a miss. They could calibrate it to target overflying missiles, but then every single time someone shoots high with an RPG (I do that all the time), you would waste a charge.

[eble 3]

seems most APS can be spoofed, which would really make them obsolete against the modern weaponary.

Possible countermeasuresOn 12 November 2009, Ph.D. Vladimir Korenkov, who led Russian state unitary enterprise “Basalt†from 2000 to 2009, stated that “The Israeli system of active protection of tanks, “Trophyâ€, as any other similar systems, can be evadedâ€. One of the activities of this enterprise was to develop rocket-propelled grenades, designed to destroy modern armament. The rocket-propelled grenade RPG-30, according to Vladimir Korenkov, is designed to overcome these tank defense systems. "All the existing active protection systems in the world share the same idea. This is a radar homing at some distance, close or far, to destroy the target with a warhead that creates fragment stream and explosive field. These systems have common flaws. First of all, the duty cycle, i.e. the time interval of the system response to the threat. RPG-30 easily defeats such a protection system. There is a smaller diameter precursor round in addition to the main round. This precursor acts as a false target spoofing the APS into engaging it and allowing the main round (following the precursor after a slight delay) a clear path to the target, while the APS is stuck in the 0.2 - 0.4 second delay needed to start its next engagement. This time interval is sufficient for defeating the Israeli system."[15]

RPG 30

HistoryThe RPG-30 was unveiled in 2008 by the State Research and Production Enterprise, Bazalt as a modern anti-tank grenade launcher designed to address the threat of reactive armor and active protection systems on tanks[1]. Active protection systems (APS) such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armour munitions by destroying them before they reach the target, the RPG-30 is an intended response to the introduction of these systems. The RPG-30 has cleared its testing program and is waiting to be included in the Russian state arms procurement program as of November 2008[1].

[edit] DescriptionThe RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27 in that it is a man-portable, disposable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. Unlike the RPG-27 however, there is a smaller diameter precursor round in addition to the main round. This precursor acts as a false target, tricking the APS into engaging it and allowing the main round a clear path to the target, while the APS is stuck in the 0.2-0.4 second delay needed to start its next engagement[1].

The PG-30 is the main round of the RPG-30. The round is a 105-mm tandem shaped charge with a weight of 10.3-kg and has a range of 200 meters and a stated penetration capability in excess of 600-mm RHA (after ERA), 1500-mm reinforced concrete, 2000-mm brick and 3700-mm of earth[1].

Edited July 6, 2011 by Eble

[nodunit 397]

Hellfires pop up when they are fired. There is a graph somewhere showing the elevation of both hellfire firing modes.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-114.htm

[maturin 12]

Meanwhile, the Russians claim that Arena's large cloud of fragments (the make it more dangerous to nearby infantry) can still encompass the main rocket if the system is erroneously fired at a precursor charge.

[Baff1 0]

The rear turret is the one part of the tank that is helpless against even the oldest AT weapons, and is the prize target for anyone armed with one. It isn't feasible to make the armor thick here, and ERA offers an insufficient boost, meaning that the only option is a hard-kill system. They really should add 60 more degrees to the coverage. Other parts of the tank have multiple lines of defense, so the rear should have at least some..

Not if that means having to mount a second radar dish or increasing the length of time needed to make a scan. Response speed is a factor.

Tanks have less armour on the back because they need less armour on the back.

Wiki's description of Arena, leads me to think it can handle top attacks. It's predecessor from the 1970's, the Drozd, had a maximum incoming elevation of 40-60 degrees only. (Which means even the seventies version of this system could counter a Javelin if it standardly attacks from 45 degree's).

Here is what Wiki said...

"The active protection system can protect against missiles fired from both infantry carried rocket launchers and from helicopters, which attack the vehicle directly or by overflying it"

Global security.org, on the otherhand, explicitly mentions top attacks.

"Arena is intended to protect tanks from antitank grenades and ATGMs and topattack munitions, including ATGMs launched from aerial platforms."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1998/05/3aps98.pdf|||

Intrestingly Arena has proved able at countering sabot rounds. Which is very impressive given their speed.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Baff1

[maturin 12]

Not if that means having to mount a second radar dish or increasing the length of time needed to make a scan. Response speed is a factor.

Tanks have less armour on the back because they need less armour on the back.

The whole point of Arena was to prevent the sort of huge losses suffered in Grozny, where the Chechens loved putting rockets--you guessed it--in the rear armor. AFAIK other hard kill systems have 360 degree protection, and with 300 degrees they're almost there. It's a design flaw, especially since all the other proposed methods of fooling hard kill systems are much more difficult and convoluted.

"The active protection system can protect against missiles fired from both infantry carried rocket launchers and from helicopters, which attack the vehicle directly or by overflying it"

That doesn't say top-attack. Not all helicopter-launched missiles climb above the sight line. An overflying missile is top-attack but has a trajectory like any other munition, and can be detected normally by the system. We still don't know something coming down from 45 degrees can be countered.

[Dwarden 1124]

people need realize that both Trophy and Arena and others are being constantly modernized to adopt to new threats

be it top-angle attack or multi round (fake round followed by true penetrator)

atm. the most effective tank and apc killer is EFP (explosively formed penetrator) at distance (usually above the target) which means supersonic stream of liquid metal hitting the vehicle ...

[Baff1 0]

@Mat,

Yes, we do.

The Drozd, precusor of the The Arena, could do up to 60 degree's in 1977. The Javelin has never been exempt from this kind of system.

The Russians however are currently on their fourth generation of this countermeasure system.

And while that Wiki article may not explicitily name top attacks as being countered by Arena by that name, the Global Security one, (which Wiki sites as it's source), does.

---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

[/color]

The whole point of Arena was to prevent the sort of huge losses suffered in Grozny, where the Chechens loved putting rockets--you guessed it--in the rear armor. AFAIK other hard kill systems have 360 degree protection, and with 300 degrees they're almost there. It's a design flaw, especially since all the other proposed methods of fooling hard kill systems are much more difficult and convoluted.

Clearly, that's not the whole point.

These kinds of systems were in use on Russian tanks two decades before Grozny.

Not protecting the rear of your tank as much as the front, is a design flaw shared by pretty much every tank in history.

The logic seems to be, that protecting the part most likely to be exposed to fire is more important than protecting the part that is least likely to be exposed to fire.

If we were to take a rival example such as Trophy, we might say that yes it has 360 degree radar coverage, but that it's response time is too long to allow for the interdiction of sabot rounds, while the Arena's is not. In fact rather predictably, given it's pedigree, it should be noted that Arena is the fastest of all hard kill systems.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Baff1

[rangerpl 13]

Even the most advanced APS doesn't have a 100% success rate.

And besides, it might do fine against one or two RPGs, but an Apache carries sixteen missiles. Four Apaches can unleash a barrage of 64 missiles in a matter of seconds, even if multiple Arena systems are operating, they would not be able to keep up and destroy all the missiles.

Thoust needs to do some research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_%28countermeasure%29

Helicopters are just as big and noisy as tanks are, except tanks have the advantage of being down inamongst the ground clutter.

Its not as clear-cut as people would like you to think. It certainly wouldnt be a simple case of just steam-rollering "them simple Rooski's with their basic tanks"

Sorry, I should have made myself more clear: The post to which I was replying seemed to say that the tanks can counter Apaches with their gun-launched MANPADS. I wanted to explain why that's difficult to do. I'm aware of the Arena and other APS systems but I wasn't talking about those.

I'm aware that the Russians are still a tough opponent and never said that the US/NATO would "steamroll" them. I'm simply saying that the T-95 is not the supertank Russia-fans think it is and that it's not immune to NATO's advanced weaponry.

The Apache was a bad example anyway, it's been demonstrated that the attack helicopters are quite vulnerable to ground fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala ) and that's why the US prefers to use A-10s and other fast-moving aircraft whenever possible.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Active defense systems are nothing new - worldwide there are some companies who are developing such systems eg IBD, Thales, Rheinmetall, Diehl, GeneralDynamics, Rafael/Elta to name a few...

Doubt that someone of those developing companies or MOD will share the latest information/data/facts about technologies to public. Guess such things will be comsec/infosec/opsec until its obsolete. The rest belongs to chitchat/rumours and speculation.

found a news from itar-tass

MOSCOW, July 1

The Defense Ministry will not buy new tanks for the Russian Armed Forces until the tanks meet modern requirements, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said on Friday.

“We met with tank designers, but 60% of what they offered us were old technologies. So, we rejected their offer,†he said. The Defense Ministry would like to find an optimal way of tank modernization, he added.

The mission of tanks is changing in modern warfare, and the number of tanks in foreign armies is reducing, Serdyukov said. “It would be more expedient to modernize the available tanks rather than buy new ones, for instance T-90,†he said.

It costs 30-40 million rubles to modernize one tank, and that is much less than the cost of a new tank, Serdyukov said.

The Russian Armed Forces have more than 10,000 tanks at present, while the optimal number is 8,000-10,000, he said." (Ñ)

[Baff1 0]

I expect all those companies who are attempting to sell them will have to be quite forthcoming.

Both Trophy and Arena have export versions.

[*LK1* 10]

just a little question OT: which is the company leader in this sector?

[Baff1 0]

Even the most advanced APS doesn't have a 100% success rate.

And besides, it might do fine against one or two RPGs, but an Apache carries sixteen missiles. Four Apaches can unleash a barrage of 64 missiles in a matter of seconds, even if multiple Arena systems are operating, they would not be able to keep up and destroy all the missiles.

Any more than an Apache will be able to launch 16 guided missiles without first getting shot down by a bazillion Russian tanks with their faster targetting faster travelling HEAT rounds.

If an Apache gets the drop on a tank, it is equiped to destroy it. If a tank gets the drop on an Apache, likewise it is equiped to destroy. A russian tank has superior countermeasures vs an Apache, should one get the drop on it, than an Apache does against a Russian tank if the situation was reversed.

Also aren't Hellfires laser guided?

Does a Shtora equiped tank not have passive countermeasures against those too?

(Not to mention it's radar and IR jammers and decoys).

I would not attempt to misrepresent these countermeasurs as ultimate counters to an Apache, a cast iron guarenteed shield, however neither would I overplay an Apache or it's Hellfire as the ulitmate sword.

There was a really good documentry someone here once linked me, about a tank vs helicopter duel in Iraq. I'll see if I can find a link.

Here's part 1...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVWprfX7XHM&feature=related

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

just a little question OT: which is the company leader in this sector?

The Russians have been in this sector for the longest, have by far the largest amount of these systems in service, the first of theirs to enter service was in 1977. The Israelis' also have them in service. The Israeli's entered theirs into service for the first time this year.

South Africa, America and Germany also have built successful protoypes. Irsael's has defeated an enemy missile in combat. I have no idea on the combat record of the Russian ones.

As far as I'm aware no one has managed to sell an export variant yet.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Baff1

[max power 21]

Longbow Hellfires are radar targetted, fire and forget. The apache itself can identify and prioritize some incredible number of targets, and share that info with other apaches... so you can have one apache pop it's radar up, identify and prioritize targets, share that information with other helicopters, then they can all fire their missiles from cover from different angles and locations and so on.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Max Power

[Baff1 0]

Thanks fo the correction on Hellfires.

Shtora has radar jamming and intrestingly radar decoys. There is every chance that when those Apache's do that, all they will have achieved is to give their position away.

Picture this scenario, the tank is hiding behind a wall. Radar cannot detect it. It's decoys are in the open. The helicopters detect and target the decoys, fire upon them... and the the tank, now with a clear idea of where the heli's are, spots them pops out from behind the wall and engages. Fires once, returns back behind the wall.

Drives to a new wall, pops out and engages. And so on.

If you think it's easy to mask a helicopter behind treelines, think how much easier it is still to mask a tank behind one. Or a wall, or a buliding, or a dip in the ground, or a dug out or some sandbags.

There is also the other possiblity demonstrated in that video I posted...

That when the helicopter pops up, it pops up behind entirely the wrong treeline and attempts to target a tank that has it flanked already. That isn't positioned where the pilots supposed it to have been positioned.... just waiting to die. But is in fact in prime ambush position to shoot down any helicopter hunting it, side on from the neighbouring village.

At which point, the only thing that kept those helicopters alive, was the tank crews inability to score a direct hit on them, with it's WW2 guns and flak shells only.

But if that had been a more modern tank, equiped with a guided missile...or even an FCS, would it really have missed so many times?

The engagement lasted 24 minutes and the T-55 tank had a rate of fire of 1 every 8 seconds... It had 22 clear minutes of firing before the helicopters spotted it. (These were not radar equiped heli's).

Oh yeah.. the Apache "just pops up". LMAO. My arse.

I was listening to that pilot recount his battle in that film. He'd gone through every tactic in his play book... and 20 minutes later he still couldn't work out who was shooting at him.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Baff1

[max power 21]

Well the helicopters don't have to reveal themselves to fire so I don't know. A helicopter pops up, takes a radar picture, then remasks, then the other three helicopters...

I just don't see a target for the tank in this scenario.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Max Power