MBT's

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

https://sputniknews.com/military/201...ssia-new-tank/[/b]

Regards,
Pat

QUOTE

.........However earlier in April, Oleg Sienko, a senior manager with the manufacturer, Uralvagonzavod Corporation, told RIA Novosti that Russia also plans to develop its tank support fighting vehicle dubbed the Terminator-3 based on the country’s latest Armata tanks.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I did see that as well, and I'll keep an eye out for it however, as you know I go beyond the military to the economic and I personally think they might be over reaching with the BMPT TERMINATOR-3. That's going to be a very expensive toy when compared to everything else Russia is trying to accomplish across the board. Their economy is struggling and crude and gas are down against ruble. They've already been adjusting downward on the total of T-14 tanks from initial buy estimates (Though really not that unusual for most projects including F-35.) and we might see the same for their other ARMATA based projects of which none are inexpensive by their and many other countries standards.

This really will be more about following "the dollars" to see if the BMPT TERMINATOR-3 comes to fruition or not. We do know the previous two TERMINATOR Mods have not as far as Russia is concerned.

If it does before 2025/2026 and given the slot situation, it'll set up for some interesting decision making at that time. Given the current production issues with the T-14 as already outlined, and someone giving me a bit of a handicap, I don't see it fully put into service before Oct. 2022.

Be bold or go home, and since I just got home, I'll just be bold.

For FYI...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...terminator.php
http://www.scout.com/military/warrio...ghting-vehicle

Again we'll see.

Regards,
Pat

[shahadi]

Russian BMPT-2 has Now Been Handed Over to the Syrians.


Syria's President Bashar al-Assad stands in front of the BMPT-72 at the Russian air base at Hmeymim on June 27, 2017. Source: Reuters

Since less than a week ago, however, the Syrian army has begun operating a solitary BMPT-2. First seen during Assad's visit to Russia's Latakia air base last week, the Russian BMPT-2 has now been handed over to the Syrians.

"Reportedly it will fight with the renowned Liwa al-Quds unit which is headed for a new offensive against ISIS in eastern Hama. Liwa al-Quds ("Jerusalem Brigade") is a unit manned by Palestinian refugees which distinguished itself in the difficult battle for Aleppo city. Uralvagonzavod gets to test its vehicle in battle hoping this will lead to production orders, and the Syrians (Palestinians) get to use a potent Russian experimental weapon." (Scott.net 4 July 2017)

"The tragic experience of the Chechen wars demonstrated the necessity to protect tanks that operate in urban conditions. An enemy soldier with a rocket launcher in a city street could blow up a tank that has to negotiate narrow streets. Tanks are also vulnerable in rugged terrain.

On Jan. 1, 1995, a column of the 131st Separate Motor Rifle Brigade was almost totally destroyed during an attack on the Chechen capital Grozny. 22 tanks and 45 armored personnel carriers were lost due to firing by Chechen militants while the column entered the city.

To avoid such tragedies, the Russian military command had started to use the ZSU-23-4 Shilka self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon to protect tanks. These weapons have limitations. The anti-aircraft weapons cannot operate in close contact with the enemy on the ground and they lack the proper systems to detect ground targets.

It’s because of the limitations of Shilka that the first Terminator was invented. The vehicle was designed by Russian company Uralvagonzavod in the late 1990s. It was built using the chassis of the T-90 main battle tank, and was armed with 2A42 automatic cannons, AGS-17 automatic grenade launchers, a PKTM machine gun, and four launchers for ATAKA anti-tank guided missiles.

The main disadvantage of the first Terminator was its high cost, since using the T-90 ‘s chassis for an armored fighting vehicle of this type turned out to be prohibitively expensive.

This version The new machine, BMPT-72 (aka Terminator-2), was built to fix both the major and minor disadvantages of its predecessor. It succeeded by having a mechanism to protect the ATAKA missiles launchers, a new engine, and an advanced fire control system.

But the main change was in the replacement of the expensive T-90 chasses with those of the obsolete T-72 tanks. This made the Terminator-2 more affordable."
(Egorov, Boris 30 June 2017 rbhtn.com)

The high costs were noted by Pat in an earlier post. It would appear, if the rbth.com reporting is accurate, the BMPT-2 will be mounted on a T-72 chassis to save rubles, and may as a consequence enter Russian service in lieu of the BMPT-3.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

T-72 it is for the T2 the below is the manufacturer site as provided by Tanks Encyclopedia from the "links" section as I had previously posted. In a nutshell much improved technology as you would expect given the developmental histories, much cheaper because of the T-72 chassis as noted (Besides the T-90S/MS is the backbone of their higher end export MBT's and the chassis would be wasted on the TERMINATOR series at this point in time.) and is much better suited to urban combat as T2 has been "powered up", suspension improved, and weighs four tons less making it more agile though, still better protected than T1.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

If Syria buys, which I think they will, as noted, Russia will be watching very closely how T2 performs during it's RL Op Eval.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

Regards,
Pat

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

If Syria buys, which I think they will, as noted, Russia will be watching very closely how T2 performs during it's RL Op Eval.
http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/49/

Regards,
Pat

If am not sure Syria can "buy" much of anything given her six years or so of a very bitter anti-insurgency war. Really, it is remarkable the army has not folded years ago, rather than remain resilient with a large compliment of Christian, Druze, and Sunni Muslims within her professional officers. Syria manages to "pay" her army yet she has had little of any control over her gas and oil fields.

So, then it could be that part of the deal is that Syria is "buying" the vehicle via an exchange of rights to gas and oil.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Let's not forget that Syria also offers Russia their only Mediterranean Port as well currently. I would bet they miss their anchorages off Libya and ports they had in Egypt during the Cold War. Not that I had any personal knowledge of them, been around them or under them.

Just not something we did.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'll be quick here, found the following to be very interesting in the details it provided. We finally have an actual count of how many APS munitions at least this system holds. In this case for their tanks (T-84) 8/or 12 or if you will, 2 per launcher. They don't all launch, only if the incoming threat falls within a launchers defensive arc will it fire. But the last should be already understood, this however is the first, unless I've missed it in other systems, that actually tell you how many rounds the launcher contains that again, I'm aware of.
http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/bronete...shchiti-zaslon

Also I reported on this quite some time ago, so the first ref is more of a refresher the real news is in the second ref. Also ref. 2 provides some very useful pictures clearly showing some of the upgrades being made.
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine...tle-tanks.html
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine...ependence.html

Remember as I've had to clear this up in the past the T-84 is NOT the T-84 OPLOT-M/or just OPLOT-M. Don't want anyone to be confused by this as I've seen some media do this as well.

Never go to the "home" page when you're trying to hit the rack () but, this is news worthy and something to watch...
http://defence-blog.com/army/russias...ttle-tanks.html

Have a great day!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

For reliable protection, one armored fighting vehicle typically needs from three to six such modules to be installed, each containing two rounds of countermunition and weighing from 50 to 130 kg. In its configuration tailored to battle tanks, the system consists of a control panel housed in the tank turret, and several armored-shell modules, each containing two rounds of dedicated countermunition. Four such modules are arranged symmetrically on both sides in niches atop the tracks for concealment purposes. For detecting incoming threats, each round is fitted with a millimeter-wave radar sensor which continuously emits signals to 2.5m within an arc of 150o-180o in azimuth and -6o to +20o in elevation. Once a potential threat is detected, the system releases a dense cloud of fast-moving splinters in the trajectory path of the incoming threat, creating a 360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle, while a backup munition is automatically deployed ready to fire once the first round is disposed of.

Does this mean only one is fired per threat or multiple launches from various points on the vehicle to create this "dense cloud of fast-moving splinters "

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

What I get is...One launcher with a 150-180 degree arc of detection will fire one round against that inbound threat/then it will "detonate" and provide the platform with a full 360 degree level of protection/the second round in that same launcher will be armed to respond against another inbound threat if launched against the platform if again it still falls within it's arc of detect-ability.

From the ref...
"...system releases a (First round.-mine) dense cloud of fast-moving splinters in the trajectory path of the incoming threat, creating a 360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle, while a backup munition is automatically deployed ready to fire once the first round is disposed of."

Though I don't like that highlighted word where it is...
"360o kill zone between the incoming threat and the host vehicle,"

My normal backup protocol for this type of situation has already been activated and launched.

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

I would assume 2 cover the frontal arc & 2 the rear given the 150-180 coverage arcs.
Potentialy I would say 2 would cover any arc & activate unless they talk to each other & the second does not fire.
Incoming shot from the front angled like so /
Closest sensor fires first on the right front, projectile continues and enters the sensor range for the left front so it would activate unless told not to.
Best case each arc talks to each other & in overlap zones it can respond 4 times if only one fires.
Possibly more likely is 2 times through the same arc, both fire & have one reload.
It could react more if fired on from diffrent arcs.
Assuming 2 shots from the front followed by a third from the side.
The front unit covering that arc would be out of ammo but the rear unit has not triggered yet so has ammo to fire.

This reminds me I would love to know how useful is modern artillery versus modern armour?
Not talking with regards to destroying but its effect on protective systems, vision aids & targeting.
Versus a dug in target I would have thought while it might not destroy it a high overpressure attack such as thermobaric could kill the tech.