I linked to Kontakt-5 ERA - which apparantly isn`t ERA according to you. But is, according to NII Stalli who make it.
arena will react to slowly to do anything against a KE long rod - thats what the ERA bricks are for.
who mentioned anything about ARENA-E?
While Arena-E provides an effective protection
no one - YOU mentioned ARENA - and at no time mentioned the export version - KBM`s literature is for ARENA as supplied to the russian army - and they say its for intercepting ATGM`s and Grenades and not for M829A1,2 or 3 - K-5 ERA and better is for that.
"Arena-E" Active Protection System for Armoured Vehicles.
Order for products
LIST OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS REQUESTED OF FOREIGN FIRMS
To establish business relations in compliance with the Russian Law one is requested to forward an original official request indicating the End User Country, range and quantity of defence products and service list to the Committee for Military and Technical Cooperation with Foreign States addressed to M.A. Dmitriev, Chairman of CMTC of the Russian Federation (a copy to our address) expressing intentions of Customer and requesting to commission the work to FSUE "KBM".
This request should be sent to the address: 18/1 Ovchinnikovskaya nab, Moscow, Fax: 7-(495) 950-16-84, 950-16-88, 953-12-49.
Drozd-2 -nothing to do with KE round interception - in fact its not actually as good as arena
Kaktus is a clam shell ERA ; using a lighter scale instead of a brick - thats from KBM who make the damn stuff and is twice as effectively as contact (K-5)
Relikt - also made by KBM is 5 times more effective that K-5 and is a heavier ERA brick which is why it weighs more ; this can be used in cojunction with Shtora-1 EOCMDAS `soft kill` system and the ARENA (or Drozd-2) ATGM `Hard Kill` system for effective protection from Hyper velocity Long Rod penetrators.
The 3 different SYSTEMS work together.
Kaktus/Relikt are active integrated SYSTEMS.
do you now understand you are wrong.
Originally posted by SKUNK2
Originally posted by Harlequin
KBM themselevs state ARENA is designed to counter ATGM such as TOW and Grenade type weapons like the RPG-7 - link as above.
Iskander will still deny that he is wrong.
Iskander can be told a FACT and he will deny it and bring up some useless infomation that was published back in 2000 or even before.
He with out a doubt has an inferiority complex with the west!!!
Iskander, I think where we are disagreeing is on the effectiveness and range of the T-95s sensors. From what I have read, radar is only "mentioned" as having a range of 50m, and I have seen no sourced mention of any other radar suite.
Relikt ERA is quite different from Konract-V ERA. It uses a new type of ERA tile (not the standard 4S22), which is much more effective against APFSDS. Besides, it is made of independant modules which can be easily removed or changed when damaged or in the process of vehicle upgrading. As for the shaped-charge jet distruction capabilities, Relikt ERA is as efficient as Kontakt-V and other known ERA types.
Originally posted by iskander
There’s a much better 3D rendering image somewhere, but I can’t find it at the moment. It shows the new radar very well.
The main battle tank's defense from high-explosion projectiles and missiles is increased by the new Erawa dynamic armor developed by the Poland Military-Technical Institute
even the maker calls it an ERA brick - picture in the middle of the above link to support that.
why in so many threads that you press `reply` to are you the only 1 with a certain opinion , and continuing on the same line time and again when frequently proved wrong?
Harlequinn the russians don't refer to K-5/Relikt/Kaktus as heavy ERA , they normally call it dynamic cumulative armour ,
heavy ERA is a term used in the west for dynamic cumulative armour
and please learn how ERA works as its painfully apparant you haven`t got a clue.
Is this it Iskander?:
Iff not, then i will continue my search for some more images on the internet! (poor, poor search engines
stop `plowing ahead` with your own views and opinions when the makers of both K-5 (NII Stalli) and Arena (KBM) clearly state you are wrong.
totally twisting things - a thought , i do think arena or rather a scaled up version would be quite good on a ship for use against supersonic ASM`s - in stead of trying to direct a stream of bullets at a fast moving target - you just blast a mallion flachettes in the area.
now pop quiz:
New pics from the Internet about the T95:
my point is that iskander could be refering to dynamic protection as active protection , possibly hes using it in a slightly strange way ....
dynamic means active doesn't it??
and iskander , i have one thing to say for further understanding ,
join tanknet.org , and ask Vasiliy Fofanov for his opinion on your queries ,
his opinion on soviet tanks is very much respected throughout tanknet.org and other forums ...
i allready linked russianarmour.info -but iskander disputed what i linked to from there.
i disagree - whilst the termanology is different ERA is not a system - ARENA is a system (detection/ interception / destruction) using multiple devices.
Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"
By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz
Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.
Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.
In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.
"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.
Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.
Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
In short, the armor “intercepts” the projectile before it begins impacting the armor.
Originally posted by SKUNK2
reply to post by mad scientist
*sigh* It isn't the 90's any more. We are in 2008, stop posting out of date info....
Another thing about the info you posted the Kontakt-5 was tested against A1 DU sabots, the US us A3 now, while the British use Charm3, which is a superior ammunition to A3...
[edit on 24-1-2008 by SKUNK2]