F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 09:32

tincansailor wrote:
oldiaf wrote:The AGM-65 has higher speed and larger warhead than SDB so definitly it will have more strong effect on any armored target ....From where ever I look into it .. The AGM-65 was a game changer weapon the US stopped producing !


oldiaf who told you the Maverick Missile was out of production? A direct hit from a Maverick will destroy any tank in the world. No tank or any other vehicle can survive a direct hit from a 126 lb shape charge warhead. The biggest advantage the A-10C has over the F-35 is it can carry Maverick Missiles.



I don't think so as the F-35 will carry the Brimstone!

Quote: Brimstone is an air-launched ground attack missile developed by MBDA for Britain's Royal Air Force. It was originally intended for "fire-and-forget" use against mass formations of enemy armour, using a millimetric wave (mmW) active radar homing seeker to ensure accuracy even against moving targets. Experience in Afghanistan led to the addition of laser guidance in the dual-mode Brimstone missile, allowing a "spotter" to pick out specific targets when friendly forces or civilians were in the area. The tandem shaped charge warhead is much more effective against modern tanks than older similar weapons such as the AGM-65G Maverick, while the small blast area minimises collateral damage. Three Brimstones are carried on a launcher that occupies a single weapon station, allowing a single aircraft to carry many missiles.

img_3345.jpg
Offline

kukemaim

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2015, 12:57

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 12:14

tincansailor wrote:
oldiaf wrote:What about the effect of AGM-65 Maverick on T-14 ?


SDB's will go right through roof of any tank. It will take out the engine deck destroying the engine, and setting the fuel on fire. If it hits the roof of a T-14 turret it will most likely set off the ammo. Russian Tanks are notorious for poor ammo storage. Most turret penetrations of Russian Tanks result in spectacular flair ups. Not very good for the crew even if their in the hull section of the T-14. None of the few turret penetrations of M-1A2's have resulted in ammo detonations, which is why crew casualties have been so low.

I expect lots of AT-4's, Javelins, and other Western AT Weapons will be showing up in Syria in the next few weeks..

The separate ammo compartment from the crew was one of the key innovations of the T-14. Also disagree on the Javelins arriving in middle east. By whos hand?
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7720
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 13:19

No Javelins i n Syria AFAIK but a number of Arab countries use the missile.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 13:24

popcorn wrote:No Javelins i n Syria AFAIK but a number of Arab countries use the missile.

If a Javelin appears in Syria by miracle ...then definitely those Arab countries are to blame ... The real danger is if advanced MANPADs reach those rebels by Arab countries to be used against Russian aircrafts but instead would be used locally or smuggled to be used internationally against commercial airliners
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 15:12

An AGM-114 that's capable of killing any armor has a warhead weight of 9kg.

A SDB II will have a warhead in 50kg class by comparison.. At this weight it doesn't matter even if is not shaped charge in the purest form or whatever fancy armor the target has. It's only considered weak against larger structure and surface target.

JAGM/Brimstone type weapon could have some advantage in low and slow CAS situation with the rocket motor, not something F-35 need badly though. F-35 could quite possibly deliver the payload in the first run from stand-off range without ever needing to overfly the target area.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6413
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 16:35

oldiaf wrote:The AGM-65 has higher speed and larger warhead than SDB so definitly it will have more strong effect on any armored target ....From where ever I look into it .. The AGM-65 was a game changer weapon the US stopped producing !


You are clueless.


and like Geogen, I will ask you what is "game changing" about the 1970s era Maverick?

You don't need a massive warhead to kill a tank, Tanks Sabots have no warhead in fact. you can either knock out the engine in which case its basically useless, or you pierce the armor and frags and other things start knocking around and things go boom or kill the crew.

CBU-97 uses copper to kill tanks.
Choose Crews
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 17:28

XanderCrews wrote:
oldiaf wrote:The AGM-65 has higher speed and larger warhead than SDB so definitly it will have more strong effect on any armored target ....From where ever I look into it .. The AGM-65 was a game changer weapon the US stopped producing !


You are clueless.


and like Geogen, I will ask you what is "game changing" about the 1970s era Maverick?

You don't need a massive warhead to kill a tank, Tanks Sabots have no warhead in fact. you can either knock out the engine in which case its basically useless, or you pierce the armor and frags and other things start knocking around and things go boom or kill the crew.

CBU-97 uses copper to kill tanks.

Thats might work against previous generation tanks ... Not with active defensive measures like T-14
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 18:25

kukemaim wrote:The separate ammo compartment from the crew was one of the key innovations of the T-14. Also disagree on the Javelins arriving in middle east. By whos hand?


I think that "innovation" is the wrong word here. "Adoption" is a better word for that sentence since this isn't new with the T-14. Compartmentalized ammo storage and blast-escape covers (to vent ammo ignition away from the tank interior whatever the cause) to protect the crew have been in use for a very long time on many MBTs.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline

kukemaim

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2015, 12:57

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 20:22

archeman wrote:
kukemaim wrote:The separate ammo compartment from the crew was one of the key innovations of the T-14. Also disagree on the Javelins arriving in middle east. By whos hand?


I think that "innovation" is the wrong word here. "Adoption" is a better word for that sentence since this isn't new with the T-14. Compartmentalized ammo storage and blast-escape covers (to vent ammo ignition away from the tank interior whatever the cause) to protect the crew have been in use for a very long time on many MBTs.

Yes, very true.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 21:09

I don't think so as the F-35 will carry the Brimstone!

Quote: Brimstone is an air-launched ground attack missile developed by MBDA for Britain's Royal Air Force. It was originally intended for "fire-and-forget" use against mass formations of enemy armour, using a millimetric wave (mmW) active radar homing seeker to ensure accuracy even against moving targets. Experience in Afghanistan led to the addition of laser guidance in the dual-mode Brimstone missile, allowing a "spotter" to pick out specific targets when friendly forces or civilians were in the area. The tandem shaped charge warhead is much more effective against modern tanks than older similar weapons such as the AGM-65G Maverick, while the small blast area minimises collateral damage. Three Brimstones are carried on a launcher that occupies a single weapon station, allowing a single aircraft to carry many missiles.

img_3345.jpg
[/quote]

Thanks for the info. I didn't know the Americans were going to be using the Brimstone. Do you think Brimstone is more effective then Hellfire? I can understand the smaller weapons causing less collateral damage but I think both are effective. I've never heard of any tank that survived being hit by a Maverick. All these weapons including the SDB would be hitting the tank from above where armor would be thinner.

We have little combat experience with active counter measures vs. ATGM. The Israeli Trophy System on Merkava IV Tanks has proved 100% effective vs. some of the latest Russian ATGM and RPGs, at least so far. We'll have to see how well Russian Systems work in Syria. I'm afraid things on all sides are going to escalate fast. I hope we've moved some F-22's into theater in case things get out of hand. NATO may have to impose a "No fly zone" over Syria.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 21:15

The US is developing JAGM which is basically a Brimstone with a Dual mode (laser & MWR in Increment 1) and a Tri-Mode (IR, MWR, and laser in Increment 2) seeker and can use the same triple launcher. Yes, it's on the F-35's upgrade path.

As a matter of fact, both the JAGM and Brimstone are basically Hellfire missiles with different seekers.

Image

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... agm-pc.pdf
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 07 Oct 2015, 21:32, edited 4 times in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 21:24

oldiaf wrote:
popcorn wrote:No Javelins i n Syria AFAIK but a number of Arab countries use the missile.

If a Javelin appears in Syria by miracle ...then definitely those Arab countries are to blame ... The real danger is if advanced MANPADs reach those rebels by Arab countries to be used against Russian aircrafts but instead would be used locally or smuggled to be used internationally against commercial airliners


That's always a danger. I've found it odd that so few MANPADs have been used by ISIS. A few have been used but far fewer then would be indicated by the number they must have captured. After the fall of Khadafy hundreds of MANPADs got into the hands of a number of terror groups. Hamas obtained a large number but they haven't used them against Israeli Aircraft.

With Russia bombing Western and Sunni backed rebels I think there's a good chance MANPADs, at least older types will end up in Syria. At least they'll keep the Russian Planes over 15,000 ft.
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post07 Oct 2015, 21:36

F-22 already in theatre , infact 6 Raptors were sent few days ago to replace the F-22s that are being there . As for no Fly zone I don't think NATO able to threat to impose No-fly zone over Syria ... What the NATO is going to tell Russia : Stop Flying or will shoot you down !!! No chance .... Beside No legal jurisdiction for NATO over Syria ...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24499
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 00:15

Here we go - ruskietrolls sounding off about bulldust - again. Who said no fly zone where? And what does all the politics (if the crap can be called that) have to do with the thread title? F-22s, manpads, Syria and on and on - this is just crap. STFU!
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6413
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 00:43

oldiaf wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
oldiaf wrote:The AGM-65 has higher speed and larger warhead than SDB so definitly it will have more strong effect on any armored target ....From where ever I look into it .. The AGM-65 was a game changer weapon the US stopped producing !


You are clueless.


and like Geogen, I will ask you what is "game changing" about the 1970s era Maverick?

You don't need a massive warhead to kill a tank, Tanks Sabots have no warhead in fact. you can either knock out the engine in which case its basically useless, or you pierce the armor and frags and other things start knocking around and things go boom or kill the crew.

CBU-97 uses copper to kill tanks.


Thats might work against previous generation tanks ... Not with active defensive measures like T-14


But the old maverick will work huh?

Tank Sabots move at a mile a second, and the CBU-97 uses Copper skeet that form liquid metal at higher speeds than the sub sonic Maverick. So again how can the T-14 not stop the maverick but stop these systems?
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests