Honestly, take away the ERA, the Shtora equipment and its associated warning sensors and what nots, and you will have a much smoother turret.Originally Posted by marmot
The problem with that approach is youre putting lots of things in the armoured volume, which means you must have a larger volume, which means you have less armour per unit of volume. The entire Russian/Soviet approach is to minimise the armoured volume as much as possible, going as far as having an autoloader.
Merkava-4 turret does not have that much stuff attached.
Dont forget this makes the tank less visible to ground
reckon radars.
Yes, so called "density".
The question is, does it make sense any more, since:
1) The role of the (heavy) passive armor is decreasing and
the role of the (lighter) ERA increasing
2) Passive armor becomes lighter as composites kick in more and
more
3) More powerful engines are available so more armor can be carried
4) Radar signature of tanks become more important (that of
T-90 must be enormous as so much is carried on the outside)
I very much doubt the smoother but much bigger western tanks are any harder to detect. According to an interview I heard on radio some time back they've said that they've paid attention to T-90's detectability including specifically by radar.
Indeed, one can't tell radar reflectivity by the appearance. The huge, and very cluttered looking Kirov missile cruisers for example are said to be amongst the first stealth ships, in the sense that they had a very low radar signature especially for their size.
Or maybe all those massive EW emplacements on it did the job.
Your first 3 points do not really indicate putting things outside is outdated. No matter how powerful engines are or how much lighter armour is, for a given weight limit a lower under-armour volume will always provide better protection. Maximising the armour-to-volume ratio will be the goal of tank designers until we get force-field armour or something like that.
Your last point may hold weight, I dont know if radar signature is that important for a tank at the moment. I thought that 95% of the time thermal signature is used to detect tanks. At typical engagement ranges would a Merkava/M1 not be detected by radar where a T-90 would? I doubt it.
Not as important as the IR signature. If a JSTARS or something like it with a big radar is scanning the area, it won't matter if you're in a Leclerc or a T-90...
http://www.bsvt.net/eng/catalog/?action=shwprd&id=178
amaizing automatik mortar
One more representative of a flower bed
According to the video 5 Mujaheddin get gang banged .
Of course it does
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2009/09/23/popovkin/Source?
5 bandits are killed, 4 police officers are wounded. Friendly fire IMHO is the cause of these wounds.
Not a bad result considering there was obviously no coordination, plan of attack or securing the area before they started fighting the fire or sticking their heads thru the window holes...
Isn't that Chechen OMOH ? I mean, they do these kind of operations themselves without federals?
03-04.10.1993
Moscow
Remember one British navy report that suggested it was easier to find Kirov class ships by their wake than the radar return from the actual ship. Probably an exaggeration, but still a nice design.The huge, and very cluttered looking Kirov missile cruisers for example are said to be amongst the first stealth ships, in the sense that they had a very low radar signature especially for their size.
First of all you have to really examine what radars can actually see. Radar reflections really depend on the frequency used. Notice that some radar dishes have mesh dishes which are not even solid. The frequency of that radar will be low so for the transmitter and receiver the dish will appear solid to the radar beam because of its length. The large flat surfaces on the Merkava (the example you gave) will appear solid in most frequencies from very high to relatively low. The patchwork of ERA boxed on the T-90 will look like a solid surface on low frequency radars and only at the higher frequencies will any detail appear. Higher frequencies will also detect a lot of clutter as well, like leaves and sticks and stones. The solution could be RAM (radar absorbant material) which is cheap and applying it relatively simple, or to use built in ERA that has a smooth outer surface. The problem with the second option is price... it is cheaper to use external bolt on ERA and easier to replace in the field.Merkava-4 turret does not have that much stuff attached.
Dont forget this makes the tank less visible to ground
reckon radars.
If radar is a problem park behind a building or tree.
Which means keeping that ERA seems more important than reducing radar signature. A moving target on the ground will be easier to spot optically or by IR than by radar no matter what its surface looks like. Moving is more of a give away than its outer surface texture or design.1) The role of the (heavy) passive armor is decreasing and
the role of the (lighter) ERA increasing
If armour was getting lighter and cheaper then making a bigger tank would make sense...2) Passive armor becomes lighter as composites kick in more and
more
A lighter weight smaller target is the ideal. Simply putting in more power is not the best solution. Remember we are not just talking about the tank. All the current support and transport systems in place for their tanks would need to be changed if you add to its size and weight.3) More powerful engines are available so more armor can be carried
If the enemy is using active radar to track Russian tanks then that is an opportunity, not a problem. Their blow up decoys have radar and IR signatures. Their anti radiation missiles will be kept busy too.4) Radar signature of tanks become more important (that of
T-90 must be enormous as so much is carried on the outside)
Indeed. How hard would it be to design an anti radiation missile that could be fired through the main gun of a Russian tank? Change the HEAT warhead to a HE FRAG, put a simple radar seeker... when the light comes on detecting radar just bang off a round at max elevation in the direction the radar came from. The most likely radar scanning for tanks will be on a Longbow Apache. Radar detection equipment, a Thermal sight on the tank and APFSDS rounds would be the best solution there. When you detect radar turn the turret towards the emission and load an APFSDS round. Along the bearing you got the radar signal from use the thermal sight and scan for rotor blades and a gas turbine engine just behind trees. Fire through the tree at the target hiding behind the tree processing the radar return it captured when it popped up. They wont know what hit them.Not as important as the IR signature. If a JSTARS or something like it with a big radar is scanning the area, it won't matter if you're in a Leclerc or a T-90...
The problem with maths... I remember being told the rate at which bacteria can reproduce in a petri dish. After a month or so there would be a mass of bacteria the same as the weight of the Earth. The problem is it never happens because the bacteria either run out of food or hit the edge of the Petri dish and the process levels out... and if we take that to its logical conclusion, in 2025 you'll be making about 50 000 T-90's per year.
Nice find. That is the first time I have seen the Vasilek being advertised.amaizing automatik mortar
One more representative of a flower bed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
