It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia's next-generation T-95 tank

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 



I must disagree with your classification as an APC type vehicle, from what I can see it is very much a tank.


I’m just looking at the track with/roller wheel size and they do not have a profile of a tank.

They are obviously either full rubber or ‘live tracks”, which are used for airborne droppable vehicles. Actually M60 used live track as well, which was a major pain.

MBT is a made up classification, which was devised in order to create a confusing category which blurred the clear line between heavy and medium tanks.

If judging properly, so far only Merkava, Lecler and Type 90 are the Western counterparts to Soviet medium tanks.

Anything over 50 tonns is a heavy tank.

So by weight FCS fits in the medium class, but its tracks put it in the light class, so who knows.


The current status of the FCS? Very much delayed. I don't think we will be seeing anything like that come online until after 2020.


I doubt that by 2020 T-95 will not be replaced with a more advanced design. I bet they had something like T-2000 in the works for years already, since T-95 has been around for almost a decade.


EDIT: Oh, and the plastic tank is a joke to me. Its too radical for anyone to fund and from what I can see not very effective.


By plastic I’m thinking they mean high density ceramic composites, and unless some major nanotech breakthrough has been achieved I can only doubt how far they can go with that.




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
One main bad thing about autoloaders in MBT's, is that the TC or gunner cannot immediately change ammo for the given situation.
...snip...
(BTW, it takes less than 10 seconds for a human loader to swap out ammo types in the M1A1. Autoloaders may take up to 30 seconds)


I was in the Soviet BMP-2 gunner seat a few times. The loader is MUCH faster than that and the ammo is selectable by push of a button.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Its a whole different thing to swap 30mm rounds than 125mm... you cant get it moving that quick with resonably sized hydraulic components.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 



By plastic I’m thinking they mean high density ceramic composites, and unless some major nanotech breakthrough has been achieved I can only doubt how far they can go with that.

iskander, it was the soviets who first discovered nanotechnology in form of carbon nanotubes in 1952:

A 2006 editorial written by Marc Monthioux and Vladimir Kuznetsov in the journal Carbon has described the interesting and often misstated origin of the carbon nanotube. A large percentage of academic and popular literature attributes the discovery of hollow, nanometer sized tubes composed of graphitic carbon to Sumio Iijima of NEC in 1991.[2]

In 1952 Radushkevich and Lukyanovich published clear images of 50 nanometer diameter tubes made of carbon in the Soviet Journal of Physical Chemistry.[3] This discovery was largely unnoticed, as the article was published in the Russian language, and Western scientists' access to Soviet press was limited during the Cold War.
en.wikipedia.org...-1

main link to 1952 discoviery(in russian):
carbon.phys.msu.ru...

man , western media has been so full of crap about SSSR and Russia , that it fails to realise that certain major discoverey was in russia ...


Diamond is in the news, and this is good news for nanotechnology. Diamond is a prime candidate material for building nanomachines for several reasons: the tetrahedral geometry of its bonds lets it be shaped in three dimensions without becoming floppy; it is made of carbon, the chemistry of which is well understood; and carbon atoms make a variety of useful bonds with other types of atoms. Diamond research may therefore advance nanotechnology even when it is pursued for its short-term commercial potential. Progress in understanding and making diamonds has been driven mainly by work done in the Soviet Union
www.islandone.org...

and soviet union was also first to create nanotech substances that were harder than diamond:


In the 1950s, while American industry started manufacturing diamonds at 2,000 degrees C and 55,000 atmospheres pressure, Soviet scientists developed a vapor deposition method for growing diamond fibers at 1,000 degrees C and low pressures.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet group improved on this process, aiming to produce diamond films.
The technological implications of diamond films have recently been realized in Japan and the U.S., and so a race has begun to develop this technology. Dramatic discoveries are being made:
At the University of Texas 10-nanosecond laser pulses are being used to vaporize graphite, which then deposits as a film 20 nm thick over areas as large as 10 square centimeters. The film is diamond-like, but may turn out to be something new. [3]
Soviet researchers report the discovery of a new form of carbon much harder than diamond, called C8. They use an ion beam of low energy to produce thin films of the substance. Carbon atoms in C8 appear to have tetrahedral bonds, but the lattice is somehow different than in diamond--it may simply be somewhat random, resembling a glass rather than a crystal.
Much of the new interest in diamond is motivated by near-term commercial applications like diamond-coated razor blades, scratch-resistant windows and radiation-resistant semiconductors for nuclear missiles. The C8 results, however, are of special relevance to nanotechnology, showing us that diamond is just the default form of more general tetrahedral bonding patterns for carbon. Choosing from among the many possible departures from crystalline regularity may turn out to be an important of nanomachine design.
www.islandone.org...

it is said that soviets have been using diamond nanotech for space/military



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Its a whole different thing to swap 30mm rounds than 125mm... you cant get it moving that quick with resonably sized hydraulic components.


It was the 73mm version hence quite heavy. Essentially, the rounds were placed in a drum that surrounded the gunner. The drive is electric, and the drum spins real fast. Then the loading arm comes real quick, and you have to watch your head not to get in the way. Whooosh...

Anyway, it was fast.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 



I’m just looking at the track with/roller wheel size and they do not have a profile of a tank.

They are obviously either full rubber or ‘live tracks”, which are used for airborne droppable vehicles. Actually M60 used live track as well, which was a major pain.

MBT is a made up classification, which was devised in order to create a confusing category which blurred the clear line between heavy and medium tanks.

If judging properly, so far only Merkava, Lecler and Type 90 are the Western counterparts to Soviet medium tanks.

Anything over 50 tonns is a heavy tank.

So by weight FCS fits in the medium class, but its tracks put it in the light class, so who knows.

I doubt that by 2020 T-95 will not be replaced with a more advanced design. I bet they had something like T-2000 in the works for years already, since T-95 has been around for almost a decade.


By plastic I’m thinking they mean high density ceramic composites, and unless some major nanotech breakthrough has been achieved I can only doubt how far they can go with that.


I do not debate that it fits in the medium class of tanks. I merely disagree with its classification as an APC. I see what your saying about the treads, however I am more inclined to "believe" the look of the video than the other concept pictures on the web that basically show an APC with a tiny gun on top.

I don't doubt a T-100 either, in fact I'm positive that it will be around by the time FCS comes out. If were being hypothetical however I also would consider that the FCS isn't using today's technology either, its using 2020 technology just like the T-100. I wouldn't be surprised to see electrified armor and railguns, but this of course is specualtion.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 



I do not debate that it fits in the medium class of tanks. I merely disagree with its classification as an APC. I see what your saying about the treads, however I am more inclined to "believe" the look of the video than the other concept pictures on the web that basically show an APC with a tiny gun on top.


I did not intend to classify it as an APC, I merely noticed that its hull/undercarriage generally resembles that of the APCs and the BAE systems NLOS-C demonstrator rubber tracks.

These days light/medium airborne capable systems are all the rage as a part of the fast response FCS reaction force, and instead of taking a lesson from decades of Soviet airborne mechanized weaponry, MIC companies are quick to turn out what ever they can as long as it fits basic weight/size parameters.

As expected in such cases, durability, armor and mobility suffer enormously.

BAE NLOS-C is a good example of that, especially considering short barrel/recoil system life and its laughable rubber track tolerances which do not allow it any kind of degree of mobility expected from a tracked vehicle.

In my personal opinion, this is where a “chopped” Stryker chassis could actually prove useful.


I don't doubt a T-100 either, in fact I'm positive that it will be around by the time FCS comes out.


Russian always used the year to name their tanks. T-34 – year 11934 and so on. T-80 is a modernized version of the T-64, bhich represent the year they were created.

The same with T-95. It means that in year 1995 T-95 completed all trials and achieved operational status. From that point mass production is to begin.

I’m guessing but I think that the next Russian tank will be designated something like T-010, or something like that.


If were being hypothetical however I also would consider that the FCS isn't using today's technology either, its using 2020 technology just like the T-100. I wouldn't be surprised to see electrified armor and railguns, but this of course is specualtion.


Logically I have to highly doubt that. T-95s weight is still in the medium class, even though the bulk of the tanks weight has been removed by doing away with the turret, so that means that they use additional up armoring on the entire hull, which is the only part of the tank now vulnerable to enemy fire.

As for 2020 technology, who knows how far EM pulse guns or direct energy weapons/armor will advance, but I have to doubt that FCS will be a part of that adventure.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BrezhnevX
 


there had been reports of electric armour on t-95 in late 80's , but possibly because of tthe strain on the logisitics , this was removed ..



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
As far as I can see, durability, armor, and mobility have not only not suffered at all, but been improved upon enormously. The steep slope of the armor lends itself to high protection, plus the weight which is still quite high despite the size. Not to mention APSs that will positively be present on the chassis. I don't really see the reasoning behind your view that the FCS will just be a hastily slapped together tank coughed out by some defense contractor merely attempting to meet weight requirements. Please elaborate I feel like I must be missing something.

My mistake about the classifications. I thought it was by years before but than I thought about the T-34 and figured that it got into the war awfully late to be developed in 1934. I stand corrected.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the released pictures the T-95 has quite a bit more surface area on it, specifically the sides. Also, I do not believe that the weight of the turret has been so considerably sized down, after all its definitely over 130mm and probably up to 150mm. This adds significant weight and I am inclined to think that it slightly offsets the smaller size of the whole turret.

The weight isn't that much more either. Its target weight is about 50 tons, while the current T-90 is 46.5 tons, and the extra weight is likely part ammunition as well.

Please correct the following math if it is incorrect, I just learned it in physics class like... month ago.

Can it stand up to the 140mm gun on the FCS? I doubt it. Thats a lot of kinetic energy. I can't really say without seeing RHA figures. But I can calculate probably kinetic energy somewhere in the ballpark. If KE=1/2mv Squared, and the weight of the M829 is a hair under 4 KG, with an average impact velocity of 1500m/s, than KE= or 11,250,000 or 11.25MJ. Thats the current Abrams gun round (M829A3) at 120mm DU. Current estimates put a 140mm gun at well over 20MJ, and the way I see it if the M839A3 can penetrate upwards of 1,000mm of RHA than twice that muzzle energy can penetrate twice the armor. Thats 2,000mm or RHA. The T-90 has armor thickness equivalent to 900mm of RHA with Konakt-5 included, so I would bet that the T-95 can withstand 1400 or 1500 at the current, amazing rate of Russian armor advances. Even so, its not going to block a 140mm round even from the front.

Again, largely speculation.

And I am positive that the FCS will be a part of the adventure. I can't see why you think that the FCS is designed without leaving enormous room for future technology. For instance, the F-22 was designed in 1990, but it entered service with 2005 technology. Congruently, the FCS was designed in the past few years yet it will also enter service up-to date.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 



Actually M829A2 should be referenced since it’s the current round with its 1680 m/s velocity.

A2 was specifically designed to counter K5, while the latest Kaktus defeats the A2.

While your calculations are technically correct, you take one element as a constant and not as a variable;


average impact velocity of 1500m/s


I’m not sure how you conclude such an average. A2 specs are very clear;

At 2000 meters it penetrates 570mm RHA a 0 degrees, and 670mm RHA at 60 degrees.


Current estimates put a 140mm gun at well over 20MJ, and the way I see it if the M839A3 can penetrate upwards of 1,000mm of RHA than twice that muzzle energy can penetrate twice the armor. Thats 2,000mm or RHA..


Given the actual specs of A2 round, what would be the required mass/density/velocity in order to penetrate 2 meters of RHA at 2000 meters?

While muzzle energy might be considered as a constant, impact velocity is definitely a variable.


The T-90 has armor thickness equivalent to 900mm of RHA with Konakt-5 included, so I would bet that the T-95 can withstand 1400 or 1500 at the current, amazing rate of Russian armor advances. Even so, its not going to block a 140mm round even from the front.


Actually gun caliber has little to do with SABOT rounds because SABOT is the part that separates from the fin stabilized penetrator dart. SABOT only holds the penetrator in place while it’s accelerated in the barrel.

Currently K-5 is obsolete. Kaktus is the modern armor system, and its performance does not take into account the effect of Arena APS system, which is capable of not only intercepting and destroying HEAT rounds, but also altering the trajectory of KE rounds, which in turn is further deflected by Kaktus.


Again, largely speculation.


Yet another speculation is that T-95 uses hybrid-electric power plant. What is not speculation is that officially US dropped FSCS, while only the Brits are pushing ahead with their TRACER concept.


And I am positive that the FCS will be a part of the adventure. I can't see why you think that the FCS is designed without leaving enormous room for future technology. For instance, the F-22 was designed in 1990, but it entered service with 2005 technology. Congruently, the FCS was designed in the past few years yet it will also enter service up-to date.


Actually F-22s main systems are manufactured by Japanese companies, and that’s why major concerns over the amount of control Japanese enjoy over the project have been raised for years.

Quite simply put, if relations with Japan sour, by default they are in the position to practically stop the Raptor in its tracks with out ever having to fight it.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 



Actually M829A2 should be referenced since it’s the current round with its 1680 m/s velocity.

A2 was specifically designed to counter K5, while the latest Kaktus defeats the A2.



I don't see why it matters what I am referencing, I am merely using it as a foothold to show the power of a 140mm round.


originally posted by iskander

I’m not sure how you conclude such an average. A2 specs are very clear;

At 2000 meters it penetrates 570mm RHA a 0 degrees, and 670mm RHA at 60 degrees.


Do you have a more precise figure? I figure that most of the rounds fired at that time will be MRM-KE type munitions that can sustain their velocity much better, and regular rounds won't really be used at ranges where their velocity would fall far below that.

Reduced figures still put any 140mm projectile at over 1300mm penetration of RHA at 2,000m. Can the T-95 equal this? Perhaps.



Given the actual specs of A2 round, what would be the required mass/density/velocity in order to penetrate 2 meters of RHA at 2000 meters?

While muzzle energy might be considered as a constant, impact velocity is definitely a variable.



Very true however likely less severe than you think.


Actually gun caliber has little to do with SABOT rounds because SABOT is the part that separates from the fin stabilized penetrator dart. SABOT only holds the penetrator in place while it’s accelerated in the barrel.


The penetrator will obviously be up-sized. firing the same sized penetrator from a larger gun would completely defeat the purpose of having it.


Currently K-5 is obsolete. Kaktus is the modern armor system, and its performance does not take into account the effect of Arena APS system, which is capable of not only intercepting and destroying HEAT rounds, but also altering the trajectory of KE rounds, which in turn is further deflected by Kaktus.


While the APS is a definite benefit I am skeptical as to its effects on a larger and more massive projectile.




Actually F-22s main systems are manufactured by Japanese companies, and that’s why major concerns over the amount of control Japanese enjoy over the project have been raised for years.

Quite simply put, if relations with Japan sour, by default they are in the position to practically stop the Raptor in its tracks with out ever having to fight it.


The point is that the FCS will use future technology. However its an interesting and thought provoking topic so I will follow it -

Right now we seem to be on a relatively good note with Japan, the Japanese troops in Iraq, joint missile defense projects - I don't really see that changing before all of the Raptors are finished and operational. And even if it did, its not like Japan is putting classified technology into an American aircraft, the US knows every inch of the aircraft right down to the most basic lines of computer code and could likely set up facilities to replicate the systems very quickly. In essence Japan is simply the current facility.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 


-------------
Do you have a more precise figure? I figure that most of the rounds fired at that time will be MRM-KE type munitions that can sustain their velocity much better, and regular rounds won't really be used at ranges where their velocity would fall far below that.

Reduced figures still put any 140mm projectile at over 1300mm penetration of RHA at 2,000m. Can the T-95 equal this? Perhaps.
-----

perhaps or not T-95 , but not the turret as it is unmanned and much less vulnerable to top attack , though it in my opinion would be more vulnerable to mines



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   



Can it stand up to the 140mm gun on the FCS? I doubt it. Thats a lot of kinetic energy. I can't really say without seeing RHA figures. But I can calculate probably kinetic energy somewhere in the ballpark. If KE=1/2mv Squared, and the weight of the M829 is a hair under 4 KG, with an average impact velocity of 1500m/s, than KE= or 11,250,000 or 11.25MJ. Thats the current Abrams gun round (M829A3) at 120mm DU. Current estimates put a 140mm gun at well over 20MJ, and the way I see it if the M839A3 can penetrate upwards of 1,000mm of RHA than twice that muzzle energy can penetrate twice the armor. Thats 2,000mm or RHA. The T-90 has armor thickness equivalent to 900mm of RHA with Konakt-5 included, so I would bet that the T-95 can withstand 1400 or 1500 at the current, amazing rate of Russian armor advances. Even so, its not going to block a 140mm round even from the front.

Again, largely speculation.

With the "Arena" System it will.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 


No it WONT. Everyone is jumping up and down and waving their hands over their heads screaming ARENA ARENA ARENA APS APS APS!!

The ARENA is designed to defeat projectiles with a speed of 70-700m/s. A KE penetrator is significantly faster.

russianarmor.info...

And even if it did hit it, its basically designed to destroy ATGMS by in principal pre-detonating them. Seeing as how you can't pre-detonate a KE penetrator I don't see how this APS would have any greater effect.

All that it can hope to do is hit the KE penetrator, and with a KE penetrator so massive a few little pieces of shrapnel won't knock it off course.

Not to mention the fact that the KE penetrator hits well before the Arena can even react, much less engage. The Arena doesn't engage targets outside a 50m radius. Even at a very generous 1000m/s KE penetrator the ARENA would have to react in 0.05 seconds instead of the stated 0.07. And thats just reaction time. Engagement time averages 0.3 seconds. In that time a "slow" KE penetrator travels 300m, six times the Arenas effective attack range.

Short and sweet, the ARENA is too slow to react to incoming KE penetrators.



[edit on 20-1-2008 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
blackwidow you are correct there. Maybe in the future we will see stuff like this when they find something that allows to move so fast.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 



The ARENA is designed to defeat projectiles with a speed of 70-700m/s. A KE penetrator is significantly faster.


That’s correct. Projectile traveling up to 700m/s are destroyed, and while KE projectiles are not destroyed, their trajectory is affected which puts them off center, thus decreasing their integrating ability.

From that point Kaktus interprets and actually breaks up the penetrator into several peaces which impact the armor sideways.

So instead of a pointed dart piercing a small area, it’s broken up into pieces that fail flat over larger area.

Try it with a dart. Throw it normally and it will penetrate/stick, throw it sideways and it will just bounce off.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


My point is that ARENA isn't fast enough to engage a KE penetrator regardless of how destabilizing it would be if it did, which is likely not as severe as you think.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
arena will react to slowly to do anything against a KE long rod - thats what the ERA bricks are for.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


ERA doesn't make a tank invincible to KE penetrators either, in fact all that the latest ERA does is add 400mm or so of theoretical armor thickness to a tank and kill infantry that happen to be standing next to it when someone decides to pop up and throw a rock at the tank.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 



My point is that ARENA isn't fast enough to engage a KE penetrator regardless of how destabilizing it would be if it did, which is likely not as severe as you think.


How do you know?

Let me break it down for you;

1. Smoke/heat
2. Impact
3. Sound

Infrared detectors monitor not only heat signatures from booster/motor heat trails of air launched weapons, but also cannon fire.

BIG heat bloom, LOTS of hot smoke, stuff like that.




top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join