Pakistan is building her own, while India is buying off the shelf (the same capability.) Ability to make our own is much better than the commitments in the long run.
Al Khalid Main Gun Target Range
- Thread starter InsightDubai
- Start date
Pakistan is building her own, while India is buying off the shelf (the same capability.) Ability to make our own is much better than the commitments in the long run.
The problem both nations face is quality and quantity. the AK and AKII are dead end designs beucase of the limits of the carousel autoloading system. So now matter how many they makwe they are inferior. The Arjun is a leathal tank, but India keeps hitting production snags. The real race is the development of a decent MBT in numbers big enough to matter.
If Pakistan wants to really gain an advantage withpout going Abrams or other western licence build, get the Ukrainian T-72-120 autoloading system and design a new turret for the AK witha bustle rack system. It wont solve the problems of a three man crew, or T series type tanks inferior protection, but it will allow the use of true long rod penetrators (700mm+) with western levels of penetration.
If Pakistan wants to really gain an advantage withpout going Abrams or other western licence build, get the Ukrainian T-72-120 autoloading system and design a new turret for the AK witha bustle rack system. It wont solve the problems of a three man crew, or T series type tanks inferior protection, but it will allow the use of true long rod penetrators (700mm+) with western levels of penetration.
Well zraver u have to see it this way., this was pakistans first project on a tank., even if it was with colabration., i'm sure US went through alot of pain staking work to develop an unrivaled tank. Pakistan has the people but doesn't have the funding like India., but Pakistan develops enough to counter Indian threat which is more than enough. 1 Thing pakistan has is quality even Nepal military are angry at fire arms purchased from India which didn't work properly and resulted in death, from insurgents., and no where does in janes., etc reliable sources say it's an inferior tank, 1 thing that matters most is where u hit the tank during war time., and the training of the crew. Which isn't much different between the 2 nations.
Is it inferior vs the T-90 or T-72? No of clurse not, it even has some very real advantages. However vs the Arjun it is outclassed by virtue of its inferior gun and weight of armor.
Let me stress I am not knocking the AK/AK II. Until the ZTZ-99 (AK), Black Eagle and T72-120 it was the equal of any T series, T-type medium in the world. The problem is the fact that carosel loading 125mm two peace ammo is a dead end inferior technology.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
I have a article here which may be of interest. (I am gonna break this down as it is quite long)It is very informative so do persevere with it as it will help informed debate.
Protection Systems For
Future Armored Vehicles
Modern Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV), such as the M-1A2, Challenger II, T-80 Leopard II and Merkava Mk4 are all demonstrating superb armor protection based on advanced armor concepts. However, the proliferation of new generations of Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) and the wide use of hand held anti-tank rifle grenades (such as RPG) pose a serious threat to even the heaviest protected vehicles, as attacks are carried out at close range and from all directions.
Protection all around by passive armor is becoming too heavy for even the heaviest tanks, and even these cannot stop all threats in all directions. Therefore, a modern armor is a suite of protection means, comprising of relatively thin shell of ballistic steel and composite armor, (also known as hybrid armor) which can be designed to provide optimal protection from specific threats. Such armor can accommodate steel, various combinations and matrixes of composite materials, soft and elastic heat absorbing materials, kinetic energy (KE) absorbing materials such as ceramics, or depleted uranium and energetic materials (various explosives) that form reactive armor elements. A typical utilization of compound armor, designed to counter specific threats was designed for the British Challenger II and the latest upgrades of the German Leopard 2, as well as the Merkava Mk 2 Type C (shown above). The later Merkava Mk 3 Baz (Type D)uses augmented armor to counter roadside bombs and mines, anti-tank missiles and RPGs. This armor was added on the standard Merkava Mk3 and was later integrated into the Mk-3 Baz version of the tank (pictured left).
Future applications of lightweight hybrid armor can also adequate protection from small caliber ammunition, as well as Chemical Energy (CE - HEAT) threats, but are not providing full protection against KE threats. Future Combat Systems (FCS), as well as upgrades for existing platforms, will rely on a combination of passive and active protection, as well as detection avoidance and stealth. Full implementation of today's Defensive Aids Suites is expected to increase the platform's survivability in up to a factor of two. The addition of advanced ceramics, as well as composite-based lightweight armor, that already provides effective protection against small arms up to 14.5mm, is expected to defeat medium caliber guns ammunition (such as 35mm HE/AP (High Explosive / Anti-Tank) cannon projectiles) by 2006. Providing lightweight and effective protection against KE threats is yet to be proven, yet the use of advanced composite armor and new technologies currently being explored, is expected to yield a solution by 2015.
Protection Systems For
Future Armored Vehicles
Modern Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV), such as the M-1A2, Challenger II, T-80 Leopard II and Merkava Mk4 are all demonstrating superb armor protection based on advanced armor concepts. However, the proliferation of new generations of Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) and the wide use of hand held anti-tank rifle grenades (such as RPG) pose a serious threat to even the heaviest protected vehicles, as attacks are carried out at close range and from all directions.
Protection all around by passive armor is becoming too heavy for even the heaviest tanks, and even these cannot stop all threats in all directions. Therefore, a modern armor is a suite of protection means, comprising of relatively thin shell of ballistic steel and composite armor, (also known as hybrid armor) which can be designed to provide optimal protection from specific threats. Such armor can accommodate steel, various combinations and matrixes of composite materials, soft and elastic heat absorbing materials, kinetic energy (KE) absorbing materials such as ceramics, or depleted uranium and energetic materials (various explosives) that form reactive armor elements. A typical utilization of compound armor, designed to counter specific threats was designed for the British Challenger II and the latest upgrades of the German Leopard 2, as well as the Merkava Mk 2 Type C (shown above). The later Merkava Mk 3 Baz (Type D)uses augmented armor to counter roadside bombs and mines, anti-tank missiles and RPGs. This armor was added on the standard Merkava Mk3 and was later integrated into the Mk-3 Baz version of the tank (pictured left).
Future applications of lightweight hybrid armor can also adequate protection from small caliber ammunition, as well as Chemical Energy (CE - HEAT) threats, but are not providing full protection against KE threats. Future Combat Systems (FCS), as well as upgrades for existing platforms, will rely on a combination of passive and active protection, as well as detection avoidance and stealth. Full implementation of today's Defensive Aids Suites is expected to increase the platform's survivability in up to a factor of two. The addition of advanced ceramics, as well as composite-based lightweight armor, that already provides effective protection against small arms up to 14.5mm, is expected to defeat medium caliber guns ammunition (such as 35mm HE/AP (High Explosive / Anti-Tank) cannon projectiles) by 2006. Providing lightweight and effective protection against KE threats is yet to be proven, yet the use of advanced composite armor and new technologies currently being explored, is expected to yield a solution by 2015.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Add-On - Reactive Armor Suits
Explosive Reactive armor (ERA) is a common form of add-on armor, used on many Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV). This concept is combat proven. Protection by explosive modules was deployed by the Israel Defense Forces in the late 1970s, and was first, and successfully used in combat with the Israeli Army M-60s and Centurion tanks in the 1982 War, and later, by the Russian Army by the mid 80s. Reactive armor utilize add-on protection modules conforming of thin metal plates and a sloped explosive sheath, which explode when sensing an impact of an explosive charge (such as High Explosive Anti-Tank - HEAT projectile).
The ERA enables a significant increase in the level of protection, primarily against shaped charges, without a proportional increase in the weight of the protected platform. The operating mechanism is based on an initiation of an explosion, that disrupts the plasma jet created from the shaped charge warhead as it penetrates the armor. The early models of reactive armor were considered effective against all types of chemical energy projectiles, primarily ATGMs and HEAT rounds but they did not have redundancy and offered limited protection against multiple attacks. Modern reactive armor is designed to use a combination of energetic and passive materials and formation that can withstand multiple attacks. The modern modular armor is designedBradley Fighting Vehicle with reactive armour protection suite in smaller tiles, and more complex shapes that offer optimal plate slopes to counter potential threats.
A typical reactive armor suite was developed by RAFAEL for the Bradley M-2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (BIFV), under cooperation between General Dynamics and RAFAEL
The latest version of Russian ERA, dubbed Kontakt5, deployed with T-80 and T-90 tanks. This version is believed to provide some protection improvements to counter kinetic energy (KE) rounds as well as shaped charges. (Photo at left shows Kontakt5 modules on a Russian T-90 Tank).
An advanced version of ERA is the Self Limiting ERA (SLERA). Based on better understanding of the dynamics of ERA based shaped charge defeat mechanism, modern systems are utilizing improved mechanisms, which utilize lower masses of explosives which could be classified as passive armor. These considerations have significant implications on the logistics, storage and handling of AFVs and protection systems, without degradation in the protection levels. Other applications of reactive armor are based on the use of reactive properties of the protection module, yet the initiation of such reactions are not triggered by an explosive charge. Another type of non-metallic ERA is the CLARA, developed by Dynamit Nobel. As Non-Explosive Reactive Armor (NERA) or Non Explosive reactive Armor (NxRA) modules do not use energetic components, and therefore are not consumed when being hit. Therefore, they provide an effective multi-hit protection capability which cannot be obtained by ERA or SLERA. Furthermore, the loads inflicted on the vehicle's structure are much smaller and therefore, such modules can be applied to lighter vehicles. from the reactive armor system. The downside of NERA is that while it is effective against CE threats, its performance is not sufficient when engaging KE threats. Scientists are predicting that future developments of NERA will be able to defeat medium caliber KE threats.
Further advancements of the ERA, considered for future implementation, include a "Smart Armor" concept that will has integrated sensors and microprocessors embedded into the armor, which sense the location, type, velocity and diameter of the projectile or jet, will trigger smaller explosive elements, to form an effect tailored against a specific penetrator. Another future version of the reactive armor concept is the Momentum Transfer Armor - which is also designed to counter KE threats. This technology is applicable for front and side protection, where adequate space can be allocated for such installation. The system will be activated by threat warning sensors that will detect an incoming projectile and launch a small steel bar in a direction perpendicular to the flight-path of the approaching threat. Such concepts are studied as part of futuristic armor concepts, among others to the US Army FSAP and French Leclerc 2010 concept.
Explosive Reactive armor (ERA) is a common form of add-on armor, used on many Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV). This concept is combat proven. Protection by explosive modules was deployed by the Israel Defense Forces in the late 1970s, and was first, and successfully used in combat with the Israeli Army M-60s and Centurion tanks in the 1982 War, and later, by the Russian Army by the mid 80s. Reactive armor utilize add-on protection modules conforming of thin metal plates and a sloped explosive sheath, which explode when sensing an impact of an explosive charge (such as High Explosive Anti-Tank - HEAT projectile).
The ERA enables a significant increase in the level of protection, primarily against shaped charges, without a proportional increase in the weight of the protected platform. The operating mechanism is based on an initiation of an explosion, that disrupts the plasma jet created from the shaped charge warhead as it penetrates the armor. The early models of reactive armor were considered effective against all types of chemical energy projectiles, primarily ATGMs and HEAT rounds but they did not have redundancy and offered limited protection against multiple attacks. Modern reactive armor is designed to use a combination of energetic and passive materials and formation that can withstand multiple attacks. The modern modular armor is designedBradley Fighting Vehicle with reactive armour protection suite in smaller tiles, and more complex shapes that offer optimal plate slopes to counter potential threats.
A typical reactive armor suite was developed by RAFAEL for the Bradley M-2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (BIFV), under cooperation between General Dynamics and RAFAEL
The latest version of Russian ERA, dubbed Kontakt5, deployed with T-80 and T-90 tanks. This version is believed to provide some protection improvements to counter kinetic energy (KE) rounds as well as shaped charges. (Photo at left shows Kontakt5 modules on a Russian T-90 Tank).
An advanced version of ERA is the Self Limiting ERA (SLERA). Based on better understanding of the dynamics of ERA based shaped charge defeat mechanism, modern systems are utilizing improved mechanisms, which utilize lower masses of explosives which could be classified as passive armor. These considerations have significant implications on the logistics, storage and handling of AFVs and protection systems, without degradation in the protection levels. Other applications of reactive armor are based on the use of reactive properties of the protection module, yet the initiation of such reactions are not triggered by an explosive charge. Another type of non-metallic ERA is the CLARA, developed by Dynamit Nobel. As Non-Explosive Reactive Armor (NERA) or Non Explosive reactive Armor (NxRA) modules do not use energetic components, and therefore are not consumed when being hit. Therefore, they provide an effective multi-hit protection capability which cannot be obtained by ERA or SLERA. Furthermore, the loads inflicted on the vehicle's structure are much smaller and therefore, such modules can be applied to lighter vehicles. from the reactive armor system. The downside of NERA is that while it is effective against CE threats, its performance is not sufficient when engaging KE threats. Scientists are predicting that future developments of NERA will be able to defeat medium caliber KE threats.
Further advancements of the ERA, considered for future implementation, include a "Smart Armor" concept that will has integrated sensors and microprocessors embedded into the armor, which sense the location, type, velocity and diameter of the projectile or jet, will trigger smaller explosive elements, to form an effect tailored against a specific penetrator. Another future version of the reactive armor concept is the Momentum Transfer Armor - which is also designed to counter KE threats. This technology is applicable for front and side protection, where adequate space can be allocated for such installation. The system will be activated by threat warning sensors that will detect an incoming projectile and launch a small steel bar in a direction perpendicular to the flight-path of the approaching threat. Such concepts are studied as part of futuristic armor concepts, among others to the US Army FSAP and French Leclerc 2010 concept.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Advanced Add-on Armor
for Light Vehicles
Leopard 2A6 shows advanced compound armor fited to the turret and hul.
A combination of passive and reactive armor was introduced in the 1980s, as more advanced armor solutions were implemented with upgraded and new platforms, such as Leopard-2A6 (above), Challenger 2, Leclerc, Merkava Mk4, Mk3, and IMI Sabra (modernized M-60 version developed by IMI for the Turkish Army Tank Upgrade Program - photo below). Composite armor uses various materials different hardness and elasticity, heat and shock absorbing materials, layered and sandwiched together, to provide improved protection against specific threats, such as multiple-hits of Kinetic Energy (KE), and Chemical Enegry (CE) ammunition.
The latest use of IMI's hybrid armor application was implemented in the Turkish new M-60 upgrading projectComposite passive armor is designed to absorb the energy of the impact, and prevent penetration and internal damage by the penetrating projectile or its residual effects. Active and Reactive protection systems are designed to detect and deflect an incoming round or destroy it during the initial phase of the penetration. Deflection of shaped-charge weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles without adding extra weight, as did the current reactive armor system. Composite armor is usually provided in modules or tiles, which are composed of a mosaic of hard (ceramic) materials, soft but strong (composite fibers) embedded in concrete matrixes. The frontal plan is usually covered with softer material, such as rubber or other composites, which are used to dissipate the initial impact and minimize the damage to the internal mosaic, thus retaining its multi-hit protection capability. Typical passive add-on armor is the MEXAS, produced by IBD in Germany. In some models of passive composite armor, reactive, non energetic materials are contained between the different layers of the armor. These materials react when hit by a projectile, and cause the whole module to change its physical characteristics.
The add-on (applique) armour suite developed by RAFAEl for the USMC LTVP-7A amphbious vehicle retains the important swimming capability of the AAV7A1 amphibious tracked personnel carrier used by the USMCDifferent passive protection was developed for amphibious vehicles. In the 1990s, an enhanced appliqué armor kit (EAAK) was developed by RAFAEL and installed on the USMC Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV7A1). This add-on armor retains the vehicle's floating capability. More advanced add-on protection suits are based on hybrid modules, such as the IMI-RAFAEL L-VAS protection suite for the M-113 and LAV/Stryker APCs. This system is utilizing a hybrid armor solution, comprising of both passive and reactive armor, added with mesh traps, to provide front and side multi-hit protection from RPGs, 14.5mm AP and 155mm shell fragments, at a total weight increase of only two tons. Mesh traps also known as Slat Armor are also deployed on the Stryker Armored Personnel carriers, currently deployed in Iraq. Within a decade, futuristic concepts such as the Future Combat Systems armored elements are expected to field protection systems capable of deflecting large caliber HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) and kinetic munitions (APFSDS).
For Future Combat Systems, planned for deployment in the next decade, the US Army is studying optimized armor configurations, including frontal armor that will weigh 80lb/ft2 which will be capable of defeating medium-caliber automatic cannon threats, shaped-charge threats, and residual threat debris from large-caliber KE intercepted by an Active Protection Systems (APS). Another type of armor, designed for light vehicles, will be able to defeat heavy machine gun threats at 20 lb/ft2. Tests of various candidate designs is expected in 2004.
Further in the future, advanced protection techniques are developed, including stealth, smart armor, which attempts to deflect a round once it has penetrated the first layer of armor, and electromagnetic armor, which deforms and reshapes the penetrating rounds or plasma jet ââ¬â both methods are causing the projectile's disintegration inside the armor, by its own kinetic or heat energy. These technologies are expected to mature in time for FCS Block II. The US Army is currently testing electromagnetic armor concepts on the Bradley. The system uses spaced, add-on modular elements, formed with a charged element and a forward surface, used as a precursor. the HEAT jet which penetrates the forward layer discharges the internal layer, and the effect causes the jet to dissipate and loose its energy. The system can be recharged and therefore protect the vehicle from multiple shots. The current version of electromagnetic armor is designed primarily against relatively small (RPG style) threats, but could be upgraded (with more power) to protect against larger HEAT warheads. United Defense, which develops the system under an ARL program, expects that the concept could mature in a few years, if adequate funding is made available for the program.
for Light Vehicles
Leopard 2A6 shows advanced compound armor fited to the turret and hul.
A combination of passive and reactive armor was introduced in the 1980s, as more advanced armor solutions were implemented with upgraded and new platforms, such as Leopard-2A6 (above), Challenger 2, Leclerc, Merkava Mk4, Mk3, and IMI Sabra (modernized M-60 version developed by IMI for the Turkish Army Tank Upgrade Program - photo below). Composite armor uses various materials different hardness and elasticity, heat and shock absorbing materials, layered and sandwiched together, to provide improved protection against specific threats, such as multiple-hits of Kinetic Energy (KE), and Chemical Enegry (CE) ammunition.
The latest use of IMI's hybrid armor application was implemented in the Turkish new M-60 upgrading projectComposite passive armor is designed to absorb the energy of the impact, and prevent penetration and internal damage by the penetrating projectile or its residual effects. Active and Reactive protection systems are designed to detect and deflect an incoming round or destroy it during the initial phase of the penetration. Deflection of shaped-charge weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles without adding extra weight, as did the current reactive armor system. Composite armor is usually provided in modules or tiles, which are composed of a mosaic of hard (ceramic) materials, soft but strong (composite fibers) embedded in concrete matrixes. The frontal plan is usually covered with softer material, such as rubber or other composites, which are used to dissipate the initial impact and minimize the damage to the internal mosaic, thus retaining its multi-hit protection capability. Typical passive add-on armor is the MEXAS, produced by IBD in Germany. In some models of passive composite armor, reactive, non energetic materials are contained between the different layers of the armor. These materials react when hit by a projectile, and cause the whole module to change its physical characteristics.
The add-on (applique) armour suite developed by RAFAEl for the USMC LTVP-7A amphbious vehicle retains the important swimming capability of the AAV7A1 amphibious tracked personnel carrier used by the USMCDifferent passive protection was developed for amphibious vehicles. In the 1990s, an enhanced appliqué armor kit (EAAK) was developed by RAFAEL and installed on the USMC Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV7A1). This add-on armor retains the vehicle's floating capability. More advanced add-on protection suits are based on hybrid modules, such as the IMI-RAFAEL L-VAS protection suite for the M-113 and LAV/Stryker APCs. This system is utilizing a hybrid armor solution, comprising of both passive and reactive armor, added with mesh traps, to provide front and side multi-hit protection from RPGs, 14.5mm AP and 155mm shell fragments, at a total weight increase of only two tons. Mesh traps also known as Slat Armor are also deployed on the Stryker Armored Personnel carriers, currently deployed in Iraq. Within a decade, futuristic concepts such as the Future Combat Systems armored elements are expected to field protection systems capable of deflecting large caliber HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) and kinetic munitions (APFSDS).
For Future Combat Systems, planned for deployment in the next decade, the US Army is studying optimized armor configurations, including frontal armor that will weigh 80lb/ft2 which will be capable of defeating medium-caliber automatic cannon threats, shaped-charge threats, and residual threat debris from large-caliber KE intercepted by an Active Protection Systems (APS). Another type of armor, designed for light vehicles, will be able to defeat heavy machine gun threats at 20 lb/ft2. Tests of various candidate designs is expected in 2004.
Further in the future, advanced protection techniques are developed, including stealth, smart armor, which attempts to deflect a round once it has penetrated the first layer of armor, and electromagnetic armor, which deforms and reshapes the penetrating rounds or plasma jet ââ¬â both methods are causing the projectile's disintegration inside the armor, by its own kinetic or heat energy. These technologies are expected to mature in time for FCS Block II. The US Army is currently testing electromagnetic armor concepts on the Bradley. The system uses spaced, add-on modular elements, formed with a charged element and a forward surface, used as a precursor. the HEAT jet which penetrates the forward layer discharges the internal layer, and the effect causes the jet to dissipate and loose its energy. The system can be recharged and therefore protect the vehicle from multiple shots. The current version of electromagnetic armor is designed primarily against relatively small (RPG style) threats, but could be upgraded (with more power) to protect against larger HEAT warheads. United Defense, which develops the system under an ARL program, expects that the concept could mature in a few years, if adequate funding is made available for the program.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Active Defense & Countermeasures
Soft Kill
To augment the massive armor of modern AFVs, new Active Protection System (APS) or "active defense suite" concepts are developed, for heavy AFVs (main battle tanks), light tanks, wheeled armored vehicles, and armored infantry fighting vehicles. An active defense system commonly utilize various means of protection, activated at very close range, and designed to destroy, disrupt or degrade an incoming missile or projectile, thus eliminating or reducing its penetration capability.
Missile Countermeasures Device is seen installed on an US Army M-1A1 in Iraq, 2003Active Protection Systems commonly consist of an array of soft- and hard-kill techniques. Soft-kill methods, similar to Electronic Counter-Measures (ECM) in aircraft, seduce and confuse an incoming missile, by using decoys, smoke and electro-optical signals, infrared or laser jamming. Other concepts which include "Hard-kill" means, are designed to intercept and destroy the incoming projectile or missile before it hits its target. Countermeasures include fragmentation charges, steel bars, high pressure shock waves that will destroy the threat, destabilize or disrupt it flight path, or divert it from its course. The optimal implementation of APS should be "design-dependent" thus, make it adaptable to tracked or a wheeled vehicle as well as fixed positions. Most of the currently available systems are, however, too heavy and are therefore suitable only for AFVs with weight class over 25 tons. (In photo - US Army M-1A1 equipped with the VLQ-6 MCD system and M6 countermeasure dispensers, in Iraq, 2003)
Soft Kill
To augment the massive armor of modern AFVs, new Active Protection System (APS) or "active defense suite" concepts are developed, for heavy AFVs (main battle tanks), light tanks, wheeled armored vehicles, and armored infantry fighting vehicles. An active defense system commonly utilize various means of protection, activated at very close range, and designed to destroy, disrupt or degrade an incoming missile or projectile, thus eliminating or reducing its penetration capability.
Missile Countermeasures Device is seen installed on an US Army M-1A1 in Iraq, 2003Active Protection Systems commonly consist of an array of soft- and hard-kill techniques. Soft-kill methods, similar to Electronic Counter-Measures (ECM) in aircraft, seduce and confuse an incoming missile, by using decoys, smoke and electro-optical signals, infrared or laser jamming. Other concepts which include "Hard-kill" means, are designed to intercept and destroy the incoming projectile or missile before it hits its target. Countermeasures include fragmentation charges, steel bars, high pressure shock waves that will destroy the threat, destabilize or disrupt it flight path, or divert it from its course. The optimal implementation of APS should be "design-dependent" thus, make it adaptable to tracked or a wheeled vehicle as well as fixed positions. Most of the currently available systems are, however, too heavy and are therefore suitable only for AFVs with weight class over 25 tons. (In photo - US Army M-1A1 equipped with the VLQ-6 MCD system and M6 countermeasure dispensers, in Iraq, 2003)
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Active Defense & Countermeasures
In western armies, countermeasures rely mainly on deployment of smoke screen, and, to some extent, on IR countermeasures. Smoke which enable the tank to perform evasive maneuvers to counter the threat. Since 1991, as lessons learned from Desert Storm, some platforms received electro-optical (IR) jammers. The US Army fitted the Loral VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasures Device (MCD) also known as HardHat, that just missed the 1991 war, and later bought the Sanders VLQ-8As, equipping M-1A1 Abrams MBTs and M-2/3 Bradley AIFVs. The MCD is used as a part of a comprehensive warning and threat response ECM system, which detects and intercepts laser signals indicating an imminent attack. The system then emits IR signals to disrupt the threat's Violin Mk1 MCD seen here on an Israeli Centurion tankmissile/command unit tracking loop. MCDs are typically mounted high above the turret and scan the frontal arc to detect and decoy away most of the widely used ATGMs. The system is also integrated with the M6 countermeasure device which launch smoke and flares. A similar concept was developed in Israel by IMI - The Violin Mk1 (shown on left photo) and Violin Mk 2 were deployed as follow-on protection to IR flares that were used as ATGM decoys. These protection devices were proven effective in combat, protecting both stationary and mobile assets.
However, in combat operations where threats were unexpected, MCD systems would not provide optimal protection, as they are effective only against specific threats. Furthermore, deception techniques divert the incoming missile from the intended target, but do not destroy it. Missiles diverted by protection systems are known to cause damage and casualties in several cases. The US Army is considering to replace the 1990's technology of the MCD, with a Full Spectrum Active Protection (FSAP), a new system approach that will be balanced with the capabilities of future advanced armor technology.
The US Marine Corps are studying a different concept for their future amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV) - a Retractable sensor-Decoy Mast (RDM), which can be deployed within two seconds from a given cue. Its payload will provides false targets to multi-spectral IR/laser or millimeter-wave threats such as Sensor Fuse Munitions (SFM). The decoy provides survivable miss distance against missiles and SFM threats.
In Europe, The French Army has equipped its AMX-30B2 MBTs with decoy systems from developed by GIAT. The MUSS self protection system, produced by EADS is used on French Army AMX-10C armored vehicles. MUSS consists of an Eirel NG infrared jammer, which provides self-protection against a broad range of western and eastern block anti-tank missiles utilizing the SACLOS guidance mode. Eirel is part of integrated self-defense systems as ADAS, MUSS and KBCM. (MUSS control panel is shown above. Eirel rotateable protection module shown on picture on the right.
Thales Optronic Systems is also introducing laser warning defensive aid system for AFV Systems, named Cerberus. Typical layout uses four detector arrays and 16 launchers covering the front and rear; other configurations incorporate seven sets of sector arrays (6 in azimuth, one in elevation) to cover the entire hemisphere. The detectors are sensitive to all types of lasers, (400 ââ¬â 1600 nm). The warning system triggers various alarms, such as "single pulse lasers" (rangefinders), "multi-pulse lasers" (target designation) and "overhead laser" (top attack). The system can automatically activate appropriate countermeasures from the 66/76mm grenade dischargers, such as forming a smoke screen over an arc of 180 degrees within two seconds.
In western armies, countermeasures rely mainly on deployment of smoke screen, and, to some extent, on IR countermeasures. Smoke which enable the tank to perform evasive maneuvers to counter the threat. Since 1991, as lessons learned from Desert Storm, some platforms received electro-optical (IR) jammers. The US Army fitted the Loral VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasures Device (MCD) also known as HardHat, that just missed the 1991 war, and later bought the Sanders VLQ-8As, equipping M-1A1 Abrams MBTs and M-2/3 Bradley AIFVs. The MCD is used as a part of a comprehensive warning and threat response ECM system, which detects and intercepts laser signals indicating an imminent attack. The system then emits IR signals to disrupt the threat's Violin Mk1 MCD seen here on an Israeli Centurion tankmissile/command unit tracking loop. MCDs are typically mounted high above the turret and scan the frontal arc to detect and decoy away most of the widely used ATGMs. The system is also integrated with the M6 countermeasure device which launch smoke and flares. A similar concept was developed in Israel by IMI - The Violin Mk1 (shown on left photo) and Violin Mk 2 were deployed as follow-on protection to IR flares that were used as ATGM decoys. These protection devices were proven effective in combat, protecting both stationary and mobile assets.
However, in combat operations where threats were unexpected, MCD systems would not provide optimal protection, as they are effective only against specific threats. Furthermore, deception techniques divert the incoming missile from the intended target, but do not destroy it. Missiles diverted by protection systems are known to cause damage and casualties in several cases. The US Army is considering to replace the 1990's technology of the MCD, with a Full Spectrum Active Protection (FSAP), a new system approach that will be balanced with the capabilities of future advanced armor technology.
The US Marine Corps are studying a different concept for their future amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV) - a Retractable sensor-Decoy Mast (RDM), which can be deployed within two seconds from a given cue. Its payload will provides false targets to multi-spectral IR/laser or millimeter-wave threats such as Sensor Fuse Munitions (SFM). The decoy provides survivable miss distance against missiles and SFM threats.
In Europe, The French Army has equipped its AMX-30B2 MBTs with decoy systems from developed by GIAT. The MUSS self protection system, produced by EADS is used on French Army AMX-10C armored vehicles. MUSS consists of an Eirel NG infrared jammer, which provides self-protection against a broad range of western and eastern block anti-tank missiles utilizing the SACLOS guidance mode. Eirel is part of integrated self-defense systems as ADAS, MUSS and KBCM. (MUSS control panel is shown above. Eirel rotateable protection module shown on picture on the right.
Thales Optronic Systems is also introducing laser warning defensive aid system for AFV Systems, named Cerberus. Typical layout uses four detector arrays and 16 launchers covering the front and rear; other configurations incorporate seven sets of sector arrays (6 in azimuth, one in elevation) to cover the entire hemisphere. The detectors are sensitive to all types of lasers, (400 ââ¬â 1600 nm). The warning system triggers various alarms, such as "single pulse lasers" (rangefinders), "multi-pulse lasers" (target designation) and "overhead laser" (top attack). The system can automatically activate appropriate countermeasures from the 66/76mm grenade dischargers, such as forming a smoke screen over an arc of 180 degrees within two seconds.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Active Protection Systems for AFVs
Hard Kill Systems
A Stryker armored vehicle shown here equipped with two Trophy active protection launchers and four radar sensors.
Russian Active Protection Systems were matured much earlier than the west's, as they were designed to counter the threat from the west's anti-tank systems such as TOW, Hellfire and HOT missiles fired from ground and helicopter platforms, as well as airborne launched anti-tank missiles (such as the Maverick). Although the Russian systems were much heavier than their current Western counterparts, they provided the countermeasures that could decimate the western threat. These heavy countermeasure systems were designed to protect the most important elements in the heavy armored divisions - and were applied to platforms such as the T-55, T-72, T-80, T-90 tanks and BMP-3 APCs. The Drozd systems entered full scale development when as Russia was no longer planning to confront NATO, but was deeply engaged in a war of attrition in Afghanistan and later - in Chechnya, where defensive these countermeasures were required to protect much older T-55 tanks against Russian made RPGs and AT missiles. The Russian APS systems introduced innovative and proven defeat mechanisms against CE and KE threats. First was the Drozd, which protected the tank's forward arc. This system was later followed by the Arena-E system, which introduced 360 degrees protection from side, front and partially top attacks.
The US Army is considering to replace the 1990's technology of the MCD, with a Full Spectrum Active Protection (FSAP), a new system approach that will be balanced with the capabilities of future advanced armor technology. Such advanced active protection systems will be considered to provide the primary survivability component of future armored vehicles. FSAP will include missile engagement capabilities, to-attack munitions intercept and defeat capability and kinetic energy threat engagement concept. As the system addresses both Kinetic Energy (KE) threats and Chemical Energy (CE) threats, it will utilize different countermeasures concepts to engage each threat. CE countermeasures rely on technologically proven sensors and kill mechanisms.
For the near term, potential candidate for the near-term CE countermeasures system is the FCLAS system, under development at the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and the Israeli / General Dynamics developed Trophy. Another addition considered for future survivability applications are various laser based infrared countermeasures, applicable against thermal guided weapons. In Germany, Diehl is developing a similar active protection system designated AWiSS, which will be able to counter RPGs and other CE threats. A near-term Close-in countermeasure (CICM) was also developed and tested by United Defense destined for rapid fielding with US forces in Iraq.
The KE countermeasures require longer detection range and faster data processing, to provide for effective response rate against the faster threat. These have already been demonstrated in testing, but require more development to mature. Kill mechanisms compatible with KE countermeasures rely on different concepts, including radial shaped charge warheads, multiple explosive formed projectiles (Multi EFP), blast deflection mechanism as well as momentum transfer methods. The Multi EFP concept is considered to be the most mature, as it can be utilized for both KE and CE engagements. An advanced generation of the Trophy is reported to be capable of intercepting and countering such kinetic threats. It is also anticipated that the full capability version of IAAPS will also feature such performance. These munitions are set to explode ahead of the incoming threat, forming a dense "curtain" of high velocity fragments within one milisecond.
Hard Kill Systems
A Stryker armored vehicle shown here equipped with two Trophy active protection launchers and four radar sensors.
Russian Active Protection Systems were matured much earlier than the west's, as they were designed to counter the threat from the west's anti-tank systems such as TOW, Hellfire and HOT missiles fired from ground and helicopter platforms, as well as airborne launched anti-tank missiles (such as the Maverick). Although the Russian systems were much heavier than their current Western counterparts, they provided the countermeasures that could decimate the western threat. These heavy countermeasure systems were designed to protect the most important elements in the heavy armored divisions - and were applied to platforms such as the T-55, T-72, T-80, T-90 tanks and BMP-3 APCs. The Drozd systems entered full scale development when as Russia was no longer planning to confront NATO, but was deeply engaged in a war of attrition in Afghanistan and later - in Chechnya, where defensive these countermeasures were required to protect much older T-55 tanks against Russian made RPGs and AT missiles. The Russian APS systems introduced innovative and proven defeat mechanisms against CE and KE threats. First was the Drozd, which protected the tank's forward arc. This system was later followed by the Arena-E system, which introduced 360 degrees protection from side, front and partially top attacks.
The US Army is considering to replace the 1990's technology of the MCD, with a Full Spectrum Active Protection (FSAP), a new system approach that will be balanced with the capabilities of future advanced armor technology. Such advanced active protection systems will be considered to provide the primary survivability component of future armored vehicles. FSAP will include missile engagement capabilities, to-attack munitions intercept and defeat capability and kinetic energy threat engagement concept. As the system addresses both Kinetic Energy (KE) threats and Chemical Energy (CE) threats, it will utilize different countermeasures concepts to engage each threat. CE countermeasures rely on technologically proven sensors and kill mechanisms.
For the near term, potential candidate for the near-term CE countermeasures system is the FCLAS system, under development at the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and the Israeli / General Dynamics developed Trophy. Another addition considered for future survivability applications are various laser based infrared countermeasures, applicable against thermal guided weapons. In Germany, Diehl is developing a similar active protection system designated AWiSS, which will be able to counter RPGs and other CE threats. A near-term Close-in countermeasure (CICM) was also developed and tested by United Defense destined for rapid fielding with US forces in Iraq.
The KE countermeasures require longer detection range and faster data processing, to provide for effective response rate against the faster threat. These have already been demonstrated in testing, but require more development to mature. Kill mechanisms compatible with KE countermeasures rely on different concepts, including radial shaped charge warheads, multiple explosive formed projectiles (Multi EFP), blast deflection mechanism as well as momentum transfer methods. The Multi EFP concept is considered to be the most mature, as it can be utilized for both KE and CE engagements. An advanced generation of the Trophy is reported to be capable of intercepting and countering such kinetic threats. It is also anticipated that the full capability version of IAAPS will also feature such performance. These munitions are set to explode ahead of the incoming threat, forming a dense "curtain" of high velocity fragments within one milisecond.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
I have another interesting article on the development of the Russian tank variants. And the related problems on them.It is even longer than the other one, so i will not post it here.
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ja98/4sewell98.pdf
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ja98/4sewell98.pdf
salman77
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 353
- Reaction score
- 3
Pakistani Tanks have better quality compared to India's
India's 4,880 tanks outnumber Pakistan's 2,808 by nearly 2-to-1, yet India's inventory includes several obsolescent models, most importantly the Vijayanta (the Vickers Mark 1) and the T-55.
"Nearly all of these tanks are in bad disrepair and in need of major overhaul," said Forecast International's Weapon Systems Analyst Greg Fetter. "Most of India's T-55s have never been overhauled or modified and more than 90 percent of India's T-54/T-55 inventory is considered non-operational."
The condition of the T-72, the mainstay of India's armored force, is not much better, according to Fetter. "These tanks need a major overhaul and at least 70 percent of the inventory is not considered fully battleworthy," he said.
Fetter said India's Avadi tank production and retrofit facility has been riddled with bureaucratic inefficiency, which has greatly hindered its effectiveness. Contributing to the sad state of affairs has been the disastrous program to develop an indigenous tank, the Arjun.
"This debacle cost India over $1.23 billion and explains why the necessary maintenance, overhauls and upgrades for the T-72 and other Indian tanks have not been funded," Fetter said.
The single bright spot in India's tank program is the acquisition of the Russian T-90, but the first of these has only just arrived in knock-down state. Even after assembly, crews for the new tanks will need extensive training.
"The new T-90 tank cannot be considered a viable component in India's armored force structure until mid-year and even then in small numbers," Fetter said.
Pakistan's tank inventory, while significantly smaller than India's, has been much better maintained and upgraded over the years. The Taxila facility, built with Chinese aid, can undertake any level of modernization and retrofit of existing tanks as well as the assembly and manufacture of new production tanks and components.
"In terms of numbers, Pakistan's Type 59 (licensed T-54) represents the country's largest single tank type," Fetter said. "The nation has implemented and maintained a major and comprehensive modernization and retrofit effort for these tanks."
This effort, plus similar ones for Type 69-IIMP, has made these tanks fully battleworthy. The Type 85-IIAP, one of two tanks being manufactured, is a modern design that is well maintained and ready for combat.
Both Pakistan and India have worked at developing an indigenous tank but Pakistan has been more successful with its program.
The star of Pakistan's tank inventory is the T-80UD and the reason why India ordered the T-90 from the Russia. The Pakistani T-80UD tanks are fully operational and can deal with any Indian tank including the new T-90.
NEWTOWN, Conn.---A comparative analysis of India and Pakistan tank forces finds that India's superiority in numbers is questionable. India's 4,880 tanks outnumber Pakistan's 2,808 by nearly 2-to-1, yet India's inventory includes several obsolescent models, most importantly the Vijayanta (the Vickers Mark 1) and the T-55.
"Nearly all of these tanks are in bad disrepair and in need of major overhaul," said Forecast International's Weapon Systems Analyst Greg Fetter. "Most of India's T-55s have never been overhauled or modified and more than 90 percent of India's T-54/T-55 inventory is considered non-operational."
The condition of the T-72, the mainstay of India's armored force, is not much better, according to Fetter. "These tanks need a major overhaul and at least 70 percent of the inventory is not considered fully battleworthy," he said.
Fetter said India's Avadi tank production and retrofit facility has been riddled with bureaucratic inefficiency, which has greatly hindered its effectiveness. Contributing to the sad state of affairs has been the disastrous program to develop an indigenous tank, the Arjun.
"This debacle cost India over $1.23 billion and explains why the necessary maintenance, overhauls and upgrades for the T-72 and other Indian tanks have not been funded," Fetter said.
The single bright spot in India's tank program is the acquisition of the Russian T-90, but the first of these has only just arrived in knock-down state. Even after assembly, crews for the new tanks will need extensive training.
"The new T-90 tank cannot be considered a viable component in India's armored force structure until mid-year and even then in small numbers," Fetter said.
Pakistan's tank inventory, while significantly smaller than India's, has been much better maintained and upgraded over the years. The Taxila facility, built with Chinese aid, can undertake any level of modernization and retrofit of existing tanks as well as the assembly and manufacture of new production tanks and components.
"In terms of numbers, Pakistan's Type 59 (licensed T-54) represents the country's largest single tank type," Fetter said. "The nation has implemented and maintained a major and comprehensive modernization and retrofit effort for these tanks."
This effort, plus similar ones for Type 69-IIMP, has made these tanks fully battleworthy. The Type 85-IIAP, one of two tanks being manufactured, is a modern design that is well maintained and ready for combat.
Both Pakistan and India have worked at developing an indigenous tank but Pakistan has been more successful with its program.
The star of Pakistan's tank inventory is the T-80UD and the reason why India ordered the T-90 from the Russia. The Pakistani T-80UD tanks are fully operational and can deal with any Indian tank including the new T-90.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Have you got a link please? I wanna see it in context
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
I have a fantastic article regarding modern armour development from cranfield here....
http://www.dcmt.cranfield.ac.uk/deos/cost/dynamicresponse/files/modarmour
Real eye opener on modern systems
And another on ERA
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html
http://www.dcmt.cranfield.ac.uk/deos/cost/dynamicresponse/files/modarmour
Real eye opener on modern systems
And another on ERA
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html
Have you got a link please? I wanna see it in context
The above is probably a 3-5 year old article if I remember accurately. It was in reprinted in a few publications.
Similar threads
