Apocal
-
Content Count
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Apocal
-
-
If you think about an Apache launching from 8 miles away, or a Reflexs missile from 5km you can imagine there being some amount of time between detection and the countermeasures engaging the projectile. I think the Reflexs has an 8 second flight time?14.2 seconds out to 5km, it's maximum range.
Anyway, the Russians themselves only claim a fifty meter sensor footprint. Possibly they are lowballing and it has more, but certainly nowhere near the 2.5km range of a Javelin, or the 800-2000m range of the percentage threat ATGMs. The basic characteristics of the radar, carrier frequency and antenna size, argue very strongly against it.
Sorry Mr, I don't have a source to hand. You can see the optical sensors in that first posted video.The ones with the little glass windows.
I only ask because the manufacturer of ARENA didn't mention anything but a MMW radar for threat detection. Jane's does not either.
I can however see that you may be confusing Shtora and ARENA. Of course that still leaves the mind-boggling question of how you came to think Shtora detects a passive sensor...
I can't tell you precisely what they do, it could be as little as detect lasers shining on them.Then why are you claiming, with certainty, that they could detect the launch of a passive IR missile?
Certainly the sources I've read have discussed a combination of sensors sytems making up the tanks countermeasure suite. Weapons flare was mentioned.Are you sure you are not confusing ARENA and Shtora in this?
I don't have links to any offhand to share with you however.I feel sure you will be able come up with something on Google under your own steam. (Had you approached me with a less confrontational attitude, I would probably have made the effort to surf some up for you, but there you go).
I confronted your confusion and/or ignorance regarding the limitations regarding detection of a missile launch.
No need for links on my end. Reading through Jane's, Vasiliy Fofonav's Russian armor site, manufacturer's site, seeing a mockup, etc. all gave me a fairly reasonable idea of what the system is capable of. There is admittedly, some reading between the lines on my part, a lot of mentioning TOWs and Hellfires, a focus on helicopter-launched ATGMs in general by the company itself, along with the percentage threat of RPGs with late-model warheads, etc.
I cannot imagine that a design brief that specifies intercepting missiles from above would fail simply because they forgot to angle the charges (or the radar) in the right direction.I can't tell you how effective it is, but it's perfectly obvious that top attack missiles are within it's protective envelope.
If it helps you to visualise better, I don't think top attack missiles come in at 90 degrees to the perpendicular.
Javelin comes down at high 70s to mid 80s in the terminal stage of a top attack profile, so it's functionally the same thing. The TOW-2B is the one you're thinking and KBP is speaking of; horizontal overflight with a downward firing EFP.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree completely with the whole radar aerial needs to point straight up thing.Depends, there are some ways you can get around that, with phased arrays and such. But the company never claimed anything in that regard and no serious source has claimed they have full or even meaningful (with regards to Javelin) look-up capability.
There is no more a hard limit to how much armour can be placed on the top of a tank than there is any other part of it. If it needs more armour, when that need is identified, they will stick more on wherever they fell it needs it most.Weld a birdcage, weld some more composite plates, add larger ERA charges etc.
This raises the interesting question of how you suppose crewmen are going to egress the vehicle...? Hypothetical future tanks aside, most have access to the turret through hatches, with ability of a man to lift and close being the limit. On top of this, the big 80s thing was to actually weaken this top armor with the addition of various improvements in fire control systems, most of which required perforation of the top armor.
On the question of numerical superiority an Arena system costs 2.5 times the price of a Javelin."25 Javelins" cost more than an entire T90 and the operators are highly prone to rifle fire, there are something like a million rifles for every Javelin if percentage marks are what you are looking for, a trillion bullets.
Javelin has an effective range over five times longer than a rifle and twice that of a tripod-mounted machine gun. Certainly the classic combined arms counter to ATGMs is still applicable, but I'm gonna bet you can't name what it is.
ARENA isn't any threat to Javelin, it's a countermeasure to it, if it defeats even one Javelin in every 25, it will have paid for itself ten times over.:confused:
A curious world you must live in where a $100K (at bare minimum) system failing to protect a $2 million (at bare minimum) dollar tank over 95% of the time against a $75K missile is "paying for itself ten times over."
-
The word omnidirectional is so vague as to be almost meaningless. However, what information do you have on its ability to see upwards?Nothing that hasn't been written in Jane's or other open-sources, which only explicitly talk about detection of overflying ATGMs. Obviously just from the way the radar antenna is laid out it can't see straight up.
If it can see upwards at all, it can detect missiles at the same range as it detects all of the others. It seems that 50m would be a little short, though, seeing as it's supposed to blast a horn to warn nearby infantry. I don't think it takes long for most atgms to travel 50m.Yeah, no idea idea what's going on there. Some of the newest ATGMs are actually supersonic.
-
Going with demonstrated battlefield effectiveness as a metric, the in-game artillery and mortars are quite a bit overpowered. Unfortunately, this is because they pretty much took the lethality radius out of books and FMs and punched them into game, so even if you are a prone, an 81mm hitting within 25 meters will kill you nearly every time. 105s are overpowered overall, IME the (observed, not endured) effects weren't terribly better than 81s. In-game 105s are more on par with 155s and that is a whole different beast entirely.
-
This is true of any missile launched at range. The sources I've read say that ARENA is omnidirectional. What is its actual envelope of radar coverage?Omnidirectional, in terms of bearing, not elevation. They claim the radar looks out to 50m, which I have no trouble believing.
-
Radar and optical sensors.What optical sensors? Russians have never claimed optical sensors for ARENA and every other nation trying to use optical sensors for passive missile launch detection never got over problems with the constant false alarm rate.
Bear in mind "every other nation" developing such systems was doing so to detect hard-launch SAMs with a bloom measured in hundred foot radius, not two feet at the launch site like a soft launch ATGM.
So what's your source?
The system is designed to counter top attack amongst other systems.In those posted videos, helicopter launched attacks are mentioned as are mortars. You can clearly see a top attack missile launch at the testings. (Although not it's impact I note).
Which is the question mark to me. I've seen a mockup of the hard-kill portion of the system and, assuming it's accurate, there really isn't a way for it to cover anything near diving; the projectiles are loaded at an angle and actually face downward.
Top attack is designed to counter armour by striking at it's weakest point. It is not designed to counter Arena. Arena did not exist when Javelins were invented.My bad, was thinking of Drozd. Regardless, Javelin, or any other top-attack munition, spends the overwhelming majority of it's time outside of ARENA's sensor footprint. It remains to be seen whether TA-ATGMs enter it's engagement envelope even during the terminal phase of flight.
Top attack has many useful functions. The biggest is the weakest armor on the tank is the top, but that will probably change in the next decades as other nation's get better situational awareness systems in place and start building crew access through the rear. The next big one is that Javelin specifically has a mode called "dead reckoning" which allows it to attack tanks in full defilade. No line-of-sight required.
(In addition to this the Russians have up armoured the tops of their tanks in response to top attack threats).Addition of the ERA bricks around turret. Notice some of the angles they've been placed; they'd be glancing, non-penetrating hits fired from a direct fire weapon. However there is a hard limit on just how thick the top armor can be and how much ERA can go there; various armor-penetrating (as in wires and tubes go from outside to inside the tank) subsystems are in place, as well as the crew's hatches.
Perhaps Javelin will be upgraded to use higher velocity and radar stealthed projectiles in response to this system?Probably not in the near future. As a capability threat to Javelin, it's a question mark, as a percentage threat, it's not even close, there are something like twenty-five times as many Javelins in the world as there are ARENA-equipped tanks.
-
It doesn't - if you'd watched the videos you'd see it has a radar system on top which constantly scans for projectiles within a (relatively) short distance around the vehicle. Once a projectile enters that area it sends a signal to the other equipment which then chooses the appropriate defence and attempts to destroy the projectile.Obviously all that has to happen in an extremely short space of time.
I know, I just wanted to see if the poster I was responding to knew what the fuck he was talking about. This of course is part of the reason for the top attack of Javelin and high-pass, top-attack of the late model TOW.
-
It doesn't need to. It just needs to know when a missile is flying towards it.So how does it detect missile launch?
-
-
A few different ones including radar and laser dectection, light detection of rocket flares and gunflashes also.IR jamming is acheived by use of an IR proof smoke screen I expect.
Let me rephrase: how does the tank know it is being acquired by a passive IR system? Remember, passive means the system does not emit a signal, it only receives.
-
The T-90, being impossible to target by anything relying on IR, is invulnerable to all such ATGMs... which includes Javelin...I'm curious as to what means is used to detect and prevent passive detection using IR.
-
Any possibility of adding engineer units into it?
-
-
Now that is freaking awesome.
-
Bummer. Thank you.
-
A whole lot of people are looking at OFP with some serious rose-tinted glasses. Seriously, I play OFP now and realize that the voice acting was shit back then. And the campaign seemed awesome only because I was young and dumb enough to be immersed by anything with guns, tanks and helicopters in it.
-
Helping someone with a script to convert the M6 to a M7 BFIST, we've tried the quick-and-dirty method
BFIST addMagazine "Laserbatteries"; BFIST addWeapon "Laserdesignator_mounted";
Weapon is added, with ammo, however it doesn't appear to function when fired. Is functionality limited to adding it to the unit .cfg?
-
Plus, that also means I can't put any heavy weapons in the missions because putting them will make the soldiers with those weapons unrealistically superior to the rest. So basically mission makers are forced to either stick with light-weapons-only missions or giving up on realistic loadouts.One soldier having a weapon better suited for a certain situation than others is not unrealistic superiority, it's the basic idea behind combined arms. You match the weapon to the situation, while everyone else plays a supporting role.
Again you are making me suspicious of your claims of service in the IDF.
-
this removeWeapon "itemGPS"
-
Release release release!
-
The crew in armored vehicles shouldn't be injured by any impact that doesnt't penetrate. These things can withstand a nuke, ok not the direct impact though. ;)Eh, spall was a concern previously and sheer shock and concussion is still an issue. At it's heart, you're stuck inside a big metal box, getting tossed around like a ragdoll.
Also, I tested in editor and it appears that RPG-7-armed enemies will not engage an Abrams.
-
Any kind of cappable objective I put satchels on. Occassionally TK, but they apparently weren't stopping the enemy so...
-
Part of the 1.03 patch.
-
Oh BOO HOO .... crymore ?So how's that search going for a server that allows addons?
-
LOL.
Go into the editor, place a soldier. Click to place another soldier, but instead of picking BLUFOR/OPFOR, select empty->Ammo->US Weapons.
Tank commander separate view
in ARMA 2 & OA - SUGGESTIONS
Posted
Just to answer your question; M1A2SEPs with TUSK applied mainly haven't had the RWS added, so they still have a pintle mounted 50. And those without the RWS do not have a thermal for the caliber fifty. As for the gunner's primary sight, the M1A2SEP did recieve 2nd generation thermal imager, as well as the M1A1SA.
On the other hand, M1A1 TUSKs (any/all variants) with the old CWS do have a thermal sight added to the 50, which is nice because you fire the fifty from under armor, at night, accurately and effectively.
In either case, most of either version A1 or A2 now have a semi-remotely operable loader's MG, with remote thermal sight added, an AN/PAS-13 Medium or Heavy. Effective detection range is something around 1.5km for a man-sized target for the heavy variant. The loader gets an eyepiece which displays the thermal image and he operates the weapon from behind his gunshield, so mostly under armor with that method.
Additionally, all of the M1A2SEP-specific networking systems, most notably the IVIS, have been supplementated by newer systems like FBCB2/BFT and added to M1A1 under the M1A1AIM (Abrams Integrated Management) and M1A1SA (Situational Awareness) upgrade programs. AFAIK, this is also coming under the Marine Corps' M1A1FEP (Firepower Enhancement Program) which includes a laser rangefinder with 10km range, the 2nd generation thermal imager, various networking and situational awareness enhancements.
On top of all this, all Abrams have been undergoing armor upgrades as they rotate back to the factory for depot-level maintenance, bringing them up to M1A2SEP standards.
Cliff notes version:
-M1A2SEP got new thermals.
-M1A2/M1A2SEP with TUSK has thermal for RWS, but most do not have RWS installed.
-M1A1AIM/M1A1SA/M1A1HC with TUSK most likely do have thermals for commander's 50, as it's already a fired from under armor.
-Any variant with TUSK can have new loader setup with thermal and gunshield.
-By 2010 all Abrams in the fleet will be one of three types; M1A1SA or M1A2SEP for the Army, M1A1FEP for the USMC.
-All three types have equal armored protection.