Main battle tanks and main armament.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I was just checking out the T-95 Main battle tank, and noted that it had missile launchers along with the main 152mm gun. What do you guys think of this? Do you think we are moving to an age in tank design where main battle tanks use and heavy machine gun, supported by anti tank missiles, in place of the many cannon?

[khad]

It's already been moving this way for a while, and the way it works is that the missiles are launched out of main gun's barrel. There are already missiles that are capable of being fired out of the 100mm and 125mm main guns.

Of course missiles should be part of any tank's armament. Kinetic rounds have a max range of 3-4 km, but with the ATGM, the effective range can easily be extended to 8-10km. The USSR have always been good at developing addons and upgrades for their vehicles, and that tendency has gone even further now that Russia is appealing to the international arms market. Since the 80s, they've been installing reactive armor, anti-missile systems, and electronic jamming systems on tanks.

Of course, you just missed what is really revolutionary about the T-95. It has a completely automated manless turret that makes its profile lower than that of any MBT in the world. It enhances armor and crew survivability and essentially fixes the problems that the limited ammo storage caused many Soviet-era designs. It's a myth that the carousel would explode, but those unprotected extra rounds stowed in the corners of the turrets certainly would (it's a traditional ammo-layout that you saw in Western MBTs like the M60 or Chieftain before the M1-era invented blast off ammo compartments). It became common practice for Russian tankers to simply not keep the extra rounds and just carry the entire ammo load in the well-protected carousel.

[Comrade_Stalin]

It's already been moving this way for a while, and the way it works is that the missiles are launched out of main gun's barrel. There are already missiles that are capable of being fired out of the 100mm and 125mm main guns.

Of course missiles should be part of any tank's armament. Kinetic rounds have a max range of 3-4 km, but with the ATGM, the effective range can easily be extended to 8-10km. The USSR have always been good at developing addons and upgrades for their vehicles, and that tendency has gone even further now that Russia is appealing to the international arms market. Since the 80s, they've been installing reactive armor, anti-missile systems, and electronic jamming systems on tanks.

Of course, you just missed what is really revolutionary about the T-95. It has a completely automated manless turret that makes its profile lower than that of any MBT in the world. It enhances armor and crew survivability and essentially fixes the problems that the limited ammo storage caused many Soviet-era designs. It's a myth that the carousel would explode, but those unprotected extra rounds stowed in the corners of the turrets certainly would (it's a traditional ammo-layout that you saw in Western MBTs like the M60 or Chieftain before the M1-era invented blast off ammo compartments). It became common practice for Russian tankers to simply not keep the extra rounds and just carry the entire ammo load in the well-protected carousel.

Yes you are right the automated manless turrent is really revolutionary. From my understanding, the manless turrent, is what allowed the extra ATGM to be carryed on the T-95. The question thougth is if we well see a time, when the main gun on a tank, is replaced by missiles, just like the main guns on battleships where? We can see some of this in the BMPT which has manless turrent with ATGM and a heavy machine gun

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was just checking out the T-95 Main battle tank, and noted that it had missile launchers along with the main 152mm gun. What do you guys think of this? Do you think we are moving to an age in tank design where main battle tanks use and heavy machine gun, supported by anti tank missiles, in place of the many cannon?

In the near future, this certainly seems to be the case. However, as energy storage and generation technologies improve, weapons which are currently at the experimental stage could see battlefield use. They include:

Electro-Thermal Chemical Weapons: One can think of this an improvement on current chemical-propellant cannon technology. Working on the same principles as internal combustion engines, an electrical current in the firing chamber is used to ignite and expand propellant to a degree greater than can be achieved through chemical reactions alone. The current can be controlled and hence accuracy and muzzle velocity can be tailored to a given situation.

Electromagnetic cannons: Weapons that use electromagnetic forces to accelerate projectiles, which can be smaller and denser than traditional cannon rounds, making for increased magazine capacity and better armour penetration. They can also be made of inert materials that are safer to handle and store. Problems include rail wear for railguns, and timing/switching management issues for coilguns/gauss guns.

Directed-Energy Weapons: As well as lasers, this category includes masers, electrolasers (where a laser is used to ionise a path through which an electric current travels), particle accelerators and X-ray/Gamma Ray weapons.

Of these, the last category is the one most likely to end the up-coming (already here?) supremacy of missiles. Laser weapons require no ammunition (only a source of energy), so the cost per shot is negligable, unlike missiles. They are pinpoint accurate and cannot be spoofed or decoyed, cannot be intercepted and travel at the speed of light (or close enough). One major drawback is that DEW are limited to line-of-sight firing - however, ETC and electromagnetic cannons are not.

[Comrade_Stalin]

In the near future, this certainly seems to be the case. However, as energy storage and generation technologies improve, weapons which are currently at the experimental stage could see battlefield use. They include:

Electro-Thermal Chemical Weapons: One can think of this an improvement on current chemical-propellant cannon technology. Working on the same principles as internal combustion engines, an electrical current in the firing chamber is used to ignite and expand propellant to a degree greater than can be achieved through chemical reactions alone. The current can be controlled and hence accuracy and muzzle velocity can be tailored to a given situation.

Electromagnetic cannons: Weapons that use electromagnetic forces to accelerate projectiles, which can be smaller and denser than traditional cannon rounds, making for increased magazine capacity and better armour penetration. They can also be made of inert materials that are safer to handle and store. Problems include rail wear for railguns, and timing/switching management issues for coilguns/gauss guns.

Directed-Energy Weapons: As well as lasers, this category includes masers, electrolasers (where a laser is used to ionise a path through which an electric current travels), particle accelerators and X-ray/Gamma Ray weapons.

Of these, the last category is the one most likely to end the up-coming (already here?) supremacy of missiles. Laser weapons require no ammunition (only a source of energy), so the cost per shot is negligable, unlike missiles. They are pinpoint accurate and cannot be spoofed or decoyed, cannot be intercepted and travel at the speed of light (or close enough). One major drawback is that DEW are limited to line-of-sight firing - however, ETC and electromagnetic cannons are not.

Yes, but they still require ammo in the form of energy, which seems to be more on short supply these days. Even if storage and generation technologies improve, we would still have to produce energy in the first place. Also note that improving ATGM technolgy, also improves the ATGM that the infantry use.

[khad]

Yes you are right the automated manless turrent is really revolutionary. From my understanding, the manless turrent, is what allowed the extra ATGM to be carryed on the T-95. The question thougth is if we well see a time, when the main gun on a tank, is replaced by missiles, just like the main guns on battleships where? We can see some of this in the BMPT which has manless turrent with ATGM and a heavy machine gun
The T-80s and T-90s carry standard-issue loads of ATGMs in addition to their kinetic armament.

And about lasers, that's pie in the sky shit. Lasers have always had severe drawbacks, many of which were apparent in laser-guided munitions, which were easily spoofed by clouds or the low-tech smokescreen. And I'd like to see a laser powerful enough to burn through 1m or RHA equivalent mounted on something as small as a modern MBT.

Some people really let their imaginations run. Start a thread about MBT main armament, and someone will start talking about experimental lasers, even when the only prototype deployable in the foreseeable future is a point-defense anti-artillery system.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1017

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Yes, but they still require ammo in the form of energy, which seems to be more on short supply these days. Even if storage and generation technologies improve, we would still have to produce energy in the first place.

And you think the production, transportation and firing of cannon rounds doesn't have an energy cost associated with it?


Also not that improving ATGM technolgy, also improves the ATGM that the infantry use.

That's irrelevant if ATGMs can be intercepted by DEWs.


And about lasers, that's pie in the sky shit. Lasers have always had severe drawbacks, many of which were apparent in laser-guided munitions, which were easily spoofed by clouds or the low-tech smokescreen.

Lasers used as weapons can't be spoofed in the same way as guided missiles - just point and shoot. Also, lasers used as weapons are much more powerful than lasers used for guidance, and hence would be able to cut through smokescreens, which also do jack-shit to stop particle beams or microwaves.

[khad]

Lasers used as weapons can't be spoofed in the same way as guided missiles - just point and shoot. Also, lasers used as weapons are much more powerful than lasers used for guidance, and hence would be able to cut through smokescreens, which also do jack-shit to stop particle beams or microwaves.
Give me a break. The defense industry is starting tests on lasers that can intercept artillery and missiles (starting with a low power laser now, but they're hoping to bring the power up). It's a tall order to go from there to something which can cut through 1m of RHA equivalent in a millisecond.

[khad]

Here is a recent paper with some info on the Airborne Laser (ABL) that Boeing is developing.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL-Analysis.html


The ABL program has been controversial, to say the least. As it is directly competing for funds with capabilities such as interceptor missiles, be they silo, warship or air launched, there is an added element to the controversy, as all players attempt to maximise their slice of the budgetary pie.

The COIL laser achieved 'First Light' in November, 2004, with an initial test run. However, significant integration and testing remains before the system will be viable for operational use. This February the buy of five production airframes was put on hold, until such time as the capabilities of the prototype could be proven. Current planning envisages a trial shot against a target ballistic missile in late 2008.

Recent US reports indicate that many problems remain to be resolved. One is that of atmospheric dust particles in the main beam, termed 'fireflies'. Given the intensity of the beam, dust particles vapourise and the plasma exacerbates local turbulence and soaks up energy from the beam, reducing effective range. It also has the potential of interfering with the fine tracking function, which relies on infrared reflections off the target.

There has been considerable speculation on the use of the ABL for other roles, excluding the previously mentioned ASAT role. One idea has been to use the ABL to attack cruise missiles. If these are high flying supersonic weapons like the Kh-22 Burya/Kitchen flying a relatively flat trajectory, then the ABL will be highly effective. If they are low flying cruise missiles in the class of the Tomahawk or ALCM, then effectiveness is apt to be poor. The same is true of low flying aircraft targets or surface targets. The reality is that the troposphere, below 36,000 ft, is a poor propagation environment with a lot of water vapour and dust particles, or water droplets in cloud. The tropospheric 'soup' absorbs and dissipates the energy in the laser beam a lot faster than the dry/cold/thin stratosphere does. Physics are physics and cannot be easily beaten. The result will be very poor effective range, and an unusable weapon if any cloud gets between the laser and the target. Much the same constraints apply if the target is an aircraft. A high flying UAV, reconnaissance aircraft or even hypersonic vehicle is extremely vulnerable to the ABL. A low flying aircraft is not.

In perspective the AL-1A ABL is a revolutionary weapon which once mature will render ineffective arsenals of short, intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and high flying aircraft and cruise missiles, where conditions permit the ABL to operate within lethal range of the target. How soon the ABL matures into an operationally viable system remains to be seen.

[Comrade_Stalin]

And you think the production, transportation and firing of cannon rounds doesn't have an energy cost associated with it?



That's irrelevant if ATGMs can be intercepted by DEWs.



Lasers used as weapons can't be spoofed in the same way as guided missiles - just point and shoot. Also, lasers used as weapons are much more powerful than lasers used for guidance, and hence would be able to cut through smokescreens, which also do jack-shit to stop particle beams or microwaves.

yes there is an energy cost, to producing anything. But missiles are more material then energy. You do not need 10000 Watts for a missile to work.

[Lord Testicles]

And about lasers, that's pie in the sky shit.


What is this then:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4277729.html

[khad]

What is this then:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4277729.html
Do you get tired of making tedious, easily refutable points? This thread is about MBT armament, not the Boeing Airborne/Tactical Laser. And I said that military lasers can be spoofed by weather, which is also true. Show me a laser that can cut through 1m RHA equivalent in a millisecond and cannot be compromised by smoke or atmospheric conditions, and then maybe you're on topic. The only reason why the airborne laser was brought up in this thread was to show that lasers are nowhere near the point of being weaponized for armored ground warfare.

From your link:


While Boeing won't say exactly how far away the target board was in last week's test or what kind of armor or vehicles the chemical laser can punch through, one of the goals with the ATL is to create a weapon that's not only precise enough to reduce collateral damage, but whose power can be easily dialed up or down. "The kill mechanism for a laser is heat over time," says Pat Garvey, Boeing's head of business development for ABL and ATL. "Just a millisecond might hurt your hand, or damage a dashboard, or damage a tire. The longer you go, you might blow something up."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Give me a break. The defense industry is starting tests on lasers that can intercept artillery and missiles (starting with a low power laser now, but they're hoping to bring the power up). It's a tall order to go from there to something which can cut through 1m of RHA equivalent in a millisecond.

Maybe that's why I listed it last? Also, a laser doesn't have to be that powerful to intercept an incoming ATGM as part of a CIWS, which would provide a technical stepping stone to lasers as a primary armament (although I expect that such vehicles would retain some form of NLOS capability as well).

[piet11111]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

But also the humvee mounted laser avenger system

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/14/pictures-of-boeings-humvee-mounted-laser-avenger/

Laser based MBT's seem to be a few decades off.

Anyhow i believe that for the near future the airforce is where the real innovation will be because of drone technology eventually making all aircraft computer controlled because humans are at the limit of what their body can take with G-forces.
To make faster more manouverable aircraft pilots will need to be removed and have computers take over entirely.
Possibly we could see complete automation within 30 years where they could be flying their own missions and decide when to use their weapons without human instructions.

[whore]

boys and their guns.

[piet11111]

boys and their guns.

shame you do not appreciate the incredible amounts of technology that is put into modern weaponry.

sure its uses are disgusting but if you look at the evolution of weapons you will find a very rich history of genius the odd and sometimes bizarre.

http://www.elisanet.fi/%7Ey612237/strangefirearms/Delhaxhe-knuckleduster-revolver04.jpg

tell me you do not find this knuckleduster at least interesting.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

boys and their guns.

Idiots and their spam.

[Salyut]

The larger the bore, the bigger HEAT shell it can fling. The wider, the better. You can basically get LRP performance out of them...I'd have to check but I think HEAT might be less expensive then a LRP. Seeing as its basically a gold liner vs a machined tungsten projectile.

Plus around six inches you get into the size range of the hypervelocity kinetic missiles like CKEM. Very nasty piece of work that.

[Comrade_Stalin]

The larger the bore, the bigger HEAT shell it can fling. The wider, the better. You can basically get LRP performance out of them...I'd have to check but I think HEAT might be less expensive then a LRP. Seeing as its basically a gold liner vs a machined tungsten projectile.

Plus around six inches you get into the size range of the hypervelocity kinetic missiles like CKEM. Very nasty piece of work that.

Yes but also the bigger the size of your turret, which results in a larger profile, and a larger target.

[pranabjyoti]

In my opinion, low intensity laser can be used with parabolic concentrators as described in the science fiction by Alexi Tolstoy in "Death Ray of Engineer Garin". But, the problem is how to achieve that level of accuracy to get a very thin ray of concentrated laser.