F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

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

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 02:40

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 !


Raytheon still makes them. In fact, there is a new version in the works. But not for the F-35.
Offline

thepointblank

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 11:17
  • Location: The True North Strong and Free

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 03:18

maus92 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 !


Raytheon still makes them. In fact, there is a new version in the works. But not for the F-35.


The US military hasn't purchased new Maverick missiles for over a decade. Most of the contracts you see regarding the Maverick missile as it relates to the US is about changing one type of missile to another, refurbishment and transfers between different services.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 09:39

I've been meaning to reply to this thread but there has been some good comments I wanted to respond to so I am sorry if it seems very long winded.

My :2c: and then some...

Dragon029
A Small Diameter Bomb moving at about Mach 0.85 has roughly the same kinetic energy as a 120mm kinetic energy penetrator round (~5.5 megajoules), but exerts that energy over a wider area due to it's size. On the other hand though, it does also have a 93kg warhead, which will obviously do some damage. Would a SDB kill a T-14's crew? Hard to say, but I'd lean towards no due to the unmanned turret. Would it disable a T-14 and render it combat ineffective? I'd say it would.


as a former ground pounder I wouldn't call a 93kg (203lbs) warhead "low yield". It wont make as much of a boom as a Mk82 but if its landing on top of you, the difference between a 250lbs SDB and 500lbs JDAM is ZERO. Also keep in mind that the SDB would most likely be striking the tank at a very steep angle (almost straight down). Also we have to remember that the T-14 weighs in at just under 50tons according to public sources (most likely unloaded and unfueled... empty so to speak). I doubt that its armor is the same thickness (or effectiveness) as the Abrams and Challenger. It seems the T-14's protection is from active and passive defensive countermeasures with a dual layer of reactive armor. It would seem (to a layman) that these active/passive defensive countermeasures are more tuned towards threats at low attack angles (threats from ground based systems). Against an SDB hitting at speeds close to Mach 0.85 with a 200lbs HE warhead, I wouldn't want to be the crew.

Just as a side note I should mention the FGM-148 Javelin. Though it is a man portable (though it could be considered crew served as it takes two individuals. One carries the launch tube/missile and the other carries the guidance unit) anti-tank weapon. The Javelin was designed specifically to defeat any known heavy armored threat out there (MBTs). What makes it so effective isn't so much that it is a fire of forget system or its tandem HEAT round. Its deadly because of the way it attacks. The Javelin can be programmed to either do a direct attack (straight on) or over head (straight down). Its over head attack ensures that the missile will be impacting the weakest part of the tank (the top). As mentioned previously most if not all APS are designed to defend against threats at low angles. A battle buddy of mine who was in the 173rd said one of the very uncommon nicknames for the Javelin was "the can opener".

hornetfinn
Tank self protection systems generally don't work well with weapons coming in at high dive angles as it gets very hard to detect and track objects all around the tank. So they concentrate on most threatening elevations and that's from ground to say +10 to 15 degrees upwards. This is enough against ground launched top attack weapons as they usually fly attack with no to low dive angles. SDB (and Brimstone, JAGM or Spear) would be very different as it can dive in with rather steep angles


I COMPLETELY AGREE. Even the Abrams extra DU plating and Chobham armor is situated at areas more likely to encounter threats from enemy ground systems. Even the Israeli Trophy APS is more geared towards defeating threats at low angles.

Corsair1963
I don't think so as the F-35 will carry the Brimstone!


The Brimstone (as I understand it) closest equivalent would be the AGM-114R Hellfire II. The Brimestone would probably have more success in defeating modern dual layer ERA due to its tandem shaped charge warhead over the Romeo variant of the Hellfire II. Then again the AGM-114R's Integrated Blast-Fragmentation Sleeve was designed to better defeat hardened targets such as bunkers and heavily armored targets with ERA.
http://proceedings.ndia.org/1590/11756.pdf
Either way would hate to be on the receiving end of either.

kukmaim
The separate ammo compartment from the crew was one of the key innovations of the T-14.


Not really an innovation, more of a vast improvement over prior Russian designs and "why the F haven't they done it already?". The M1 Abrams for instance has a separate ammo compartment. The Abrams has a specially designed ammo compartment that in case of a "cook off", the Abrams has blast doors that will divert the harmful "cook off" effect away from the crew to the outside.

XanderCrews
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.


Too true. Kinetic impact alone can cause massive damage in and of itself. There is a reason why during the Gulf War US tank crews called the M829 Sabot round, "The Silver Bullet". Of course a proper kinetic round requires high density and high velocity to achieve its desired effects...
Image
I recommend people look up the US Army's "new" M855A1 EPR. Better penetration than standard NATO M80 7.62x51 and consistent effects at any distance on soft targets. (back to topic)

I really do not know why this is being discussed. Generally speaking guys on the ground do not like anything coming down on them from their air if its from opposing forces or "friendly" fire. We (the West) do not know the full capabilities of the new T-14 Armata. Is it revolutionary? Yes and no. IMO the T-14 would be just as survivable against an F-35 as it would be against an AH-64 or F-16... so in reality not really.
Offline

kukemaim

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 11:45

The russians have said though that the APS also defeats javelin. I'm not one for believing russian claims but it would make sense that this was one of the design requirements. Javelin being the premiere western man portable anti-tank system. (Alone with spike)
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 12:59

charlielima223 wrote:

/thread
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 13:05

Let's also not forget re. the SDB is it's a penetrating bomb designed to punch through six feet of reinforced concrete.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 13:25

kukemaim wrote:The russians have said though that the APS also defeats javelin. I'm not one for believing russian claims but it would make sense that this was one of the design requirements. Javelin being the premiere western man portable anti-tank system. (Alone with spike)

the easy solution would be to launch 2 missiles at the same time again same target :mrgreen:
there something i always wonder though
if a bomb can penetrate 1 meters of concrete then how much RHA can it penetrate? ( for example if the bunker roof made from steel then how far can something like GBU-57A/B go through?)
Or if a HEAT or SABOT warhead can penetrate 1 meters of RHA then how much concrete or soil can it penetrate?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 13:31

"The 250 pound-class warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ns/sdb.htm


Most sources just say "more than 1 meter of steel reinforced concrete".
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 17:35

sferrin wrote:Let's also not forget re. the SDB is it's a penetrating bomb designed to punch through six feet of reinforced concrete.


SDB1, Yes... SDB2, No

The SDB2 has a HEAT warhead and not the penetrating body that the SDB1 has.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 18:07

So according to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29
and this https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fol ... te&f=false

HEAT warheads can penetrate 2-3 times deeper again steel reinforced concrete , and about 5-9 times deeper again soil

Basically if a HEAT warhead can penetrate 1000 mm RHA, it can go through about 2-3 meters of steel reinforced concrete and 5-9 meters of soil or wood
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2279
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 18:26

Salute!

My reply got "mod'ed out" or I hit wrong button two days ago.

The small bombs work very well against armor. In spring of 1972 our A-37's knocked out several tanks at An Loc using dumb 250's ( MK-81) and the jet's TLBR bombing system ( "that looks 'bout right"). Marine helos showed up later with the TOW and no more tanks. Marine A-4's showed up pronto that spring to help us, and the A-37 folks got them oriented.

When I went back to Bien Hoa in fall of 1972, the A-4's were gone and a few helos were still there when USAF turned over all the remaining A-1's and completed the withdrawal of ALL IN-COUNTRY USAF CAS ASSETS. I was on the ground as the detachment CO for our A-7D turnaround site and a nostalgic return to my old haunting grounds.

I would not rule out the Maverick for good tank plinking if it's the latest IIR doofer. You can see tanks against trees and shrubs a whole lot better than the 1972 versions, and in the desert you can see the tanks and other targets way, way out there. It's true launch and leave, so designate and shoot and jink. The SBD and Hellfire need guidance all the way to impact. The SFW has those pesky skeet sub-munitions that can search and destroy on their own, but I only see it for attacking a tank formation and not a single.

+++++++

Off topic, but the A-37 history book is now available from our site:

http://www.a-37.org

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 19:32

eloise wrote:HEAT warheads can penetrate 2-3 times deeper again steel reinforced concrete , and about 5-9 times deeper again soil

It depends on the penetrator and how the HEAT warhead is designed.


We can see here in the cutaway of the SDB2 that the warhead has a very shallow cone in it's warhead.

Image

Compare that to the cone in a Hellfire

Image
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 08 Oct 2015, 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

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

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 19:34

Till the F-35A become ready ... The USAF is stick with A-10 ... How effective the 30mm GAU-8 against the T-14 ?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 19:51

SpudmanWP wrote:
sferrin wrote:Let's also not forget re. the SDB is it's a penetrating bomb designed to punch through six feet of reinforced concrete.


SDB1, Yes... SDB2, No

The SDB2 has a HEAT warhead and not the penetrating body that the SDB1 has.


Yeah I was thinking of SDB I. . .which can't hit a moving tank. :doh:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Oct 2015, 20:14

Actually.. it "could" ;)

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests