F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 06:36
by armedupdate
How does the F-35's tank killing capabilities far with the T-14 Armata and its armor and countermeasures?

What is the HEAT RHA penetration of the SDB like? Can the T-14's hard kill and soft kill countermeasures defeat the F-35's PGM's? Are the bombs like bunker buster heavily armed to defend against CIWs as well as hardkill rounds? Also tanks like T-14 and T-90 have DIRCM correct?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 07:17
by 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 for hard-kill countermeasures; I'm not entirely up to speed on the T-14's active protection system, but if it has protection designed to detect and defeat top-attacks, then it's definitely possible that it could significantly decrease the effects of a SDB against it by causing premature detonation. Again though, you're still likely looking at ruined sensors, set-off ERA and possibly a damaged barrel.

Against larger munitions (1000lb or 2000lb JDAMs) or bunker-busters though, the tank is screwed; having one of these go off a few meters early isn't going to help you much. Of course, using a 2000lb bomb on just a tank isn't exactly ideal, but it's an option in a worst-case scenario.

As for DIRCM; the T-90 has dazzlers, but they're pointed towards the horizon and aren't directed (they're the red-looking lamps / 'eyes' on the T-90, either side of the barrel). The T-14 has no visible dazzlers or DIRCM, likely due to faith in it's hard-kill protection.

*Edited

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 07:50
by oldiaf
What about the effect of AGM-65 Maverick on T-14 ?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 08:06
by kukemaim
What do we really know about T-14 capabilities? Other than "very stronk, better than american"? Oh and, invisible to radar.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 09:16
by Dragon029
A correction to my last post; I don't know why, but my mind swapped ERA and RHA.

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


It's mostly the same as the SDB, except that it's slightly faster and one optional warhead is nearly 50% larger.

kukemaim wrote:What do we really know about T-14 capabilities? Other than "very stronk, better than american"? Oh and, invisible to radar.


We know it's size, we know that it has ERA, we know that other than a relatively small loader / breach mechanism, that the turret is mostly just accessories, we know it has hard-kill launchers at the base of the turret, as well as potential hard or soft kill launchers on top of the turret (they could be smoke / chaff launchers, or they could be small hard-kill projectile launchers or they could be a mix of both). It also does have RCS & IR reduction measures, but I wouldn't call it 'stealthy'.

We don't know much about it's actual armour, but you can only put so much on a tank before it''s harmful.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 09:35
by stobiewan
Brimstone might make a mess of a T14 - the UK is integrating it and I believe the US is looking at buying the thing.

If you're tank plinking, skip the internal carriage and go in with twelve under the wings.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 09:48
by oldiaf
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 !

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 10:33
by popcorn
A concrete bomb would possibly mess up a lot of sensitive stuff..

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 12:36
by eloise
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 !

AGM-65 have much shorter range than SDB and it is also a LOBL missile which make multiple target attack impossible
also most if not all hard kill active protection on tank are not designed to defeat top attack, so any weapons that can do top attack will be fine again them, in the worst case scenario you can drop 2 bombs instead of 1 again each tank, the first bombs may be defeated by APS but the second will go through.
penetration value of AGM and bombs are actually not that important because they mostly attack tank from the top where the armor is only few centimetres thick, and they have much more explosive than RPG, thus even if they fail to penetrate, the tank still get messed up

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 12:55
by 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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 03:40
by armedupdate
Judging by this picture, the T-14's Afganit hard kill system shoots sideways to stop frontal atttacks not top attacks. It won't stop a Javelin or PGM.
Image

Can the T-90's dazzlers point upwards?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 04:55
by Dragon029
If the Afghanit system works like the Arena APS, then it is useless against elevated threats (bombs). However, the big question is what the launchers on top do. If they just fire smoke / chaff grenades, then they're going to be limited in usefulness. If they're an active protection system however (and that may be likely due to the swivelling launchers) then they could help.

In particular, there's some fixed pods that point directly upwards (#5 in this diagram), which would be ideal for protecting against top-attack weapons (bombs, Javelins, etc).

Also, while it's unlikely; if the Afghanit can work like this (AFAIK it's called the IAAPS, developed for the FCS), then it could provide protection against bombs as well.

Also, I stand corrected; the T-90 can swivel it's dazzlers upwards. However, I'm not sure how high it can twist, as it looks like it might even be directly linked to the elevation of the cannon.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 05:27
by armedupdate
The top cartridges are the soft kill system I believe.
http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14- ... hSeZyqwaA0

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 07:46
by tincansailor
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 08:55
by tincansailor
oldiaf wrote:What about the effect of AGM-65 Maverick on T-14 ?


Most estimates of the T-14 suggest it's not much better armored then the T-90. Remember the T-90 is better armored then the Russian T-72, which is better armored then the export versions we've faced in the Middle East. However a direct hit from a Maverick will open it up like a can. Western anti-tank weapons are so deadly Russia has felt it necessary to develop these hard and soft kill systems, along with jammers & dazzlers to throw off guidance systems.

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.

With Russian Tanks, manned by Russian crews now fighting in Syria we'll see how well they'll do. American TOW Missiles have been having good results in Syria verses T-55s and Export T-72s. The Sunni States will be upping the game with more and better anti-tank weapons so we'll soon be seeing a lot of burned out Russian T-90s. We have reports of at least one T-90 Battalion in Syria, guarding their Base at Latakia, with more units coming.

I expect lots of AT-4's, Javelins, and other Western AT Weapons will be showing up in Syria in the next few weeks. I've also seen Chinese AT Weapons in the hands of Syrian Rebels. If Turkey enters the conflict by moving troops into Syria West of the Euphrates River to create safe zones for Syrian Civilians what will Russia do? Attack the Turks? Will they fly into Turkish Airspace again? Will they clash with the Israeli Air Force over Lebanon, or over the Sea like almost happened over the Weekend? Putin may be taking on more then he can handle. He's playing with fire.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 09:32
by Corsair1963
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

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 12:14
by kukemaim
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?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 13:19
by popcorn
No Javelins i n Syria AFAIK but a number of Arab countries use the missile.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 13:24
by oldiaf
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

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 15:12
by mmm
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 16:35
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 17:28
by oldiaf
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

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 18:25
by archeman
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 20:22
by kukemaim
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 21:09
by tincansailor
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 21:15
by SpudmanWP
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

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 21:24
by tincansailor
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2015, 21:36
by oldiaf
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 ...

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 00:15
by spazsinbad
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!

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 00:43
by XanderCrews
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?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 02:40
by maus92
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 03:18
by thepointblank
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 09:39
by charlielima223
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 11:45
by kukemaim
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)

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 12:59
by Dragon029
charlielima223 wrote:

/thread

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 13:05
by sferrin
Let's also not forget re. the SDB is it's a penetrating bomb designed to punch through six feet of reinforced concrete.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 13:25
by eloise
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?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 13:31
by sferrin
"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".

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 17:35
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 18:07
by eloise
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

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 18:26
by Gums
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...

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 19:32
by SpudmanWP
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

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 19:34
by oldiaf
Till the F-35A become ready ... The USAF is stick with A-10 ... How effective the 30mm GAU-8 against the T-14 ?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 19:51
by sferrin
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:

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 20:14
by SpudmanWP
Actually.. it "could" ;)

Image

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 20:31
by sferrin
What is that?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 20:34
by XanderCrews
The same issue that rears it ugly head with Russian aircraft is going to rear its ugly head with tanks. At best this tank is catching up to where the west has been for a long time, I doubt there is anything revolutionary about it from a western perspective. The great majority of Russian armor is going to predate 1990. It finally doesn't have the turret sitting on top of a giant unprotected ammo carousel, so thats progress. Its going to be vulnerable on the engine deck and rear like most tanks. Obviously they are smart enough to concern themselves with top attack like Javelin and Tow-2B.

Image

I highly doubt it going to cause a massive upset in NATO or US weapons employment. Hear it from someone in the know!:

Tanks are easy to kill, we've fielded an entire family of weapons which can quickly, rapidly, and off virtually every aircraft in the inventory, kill massed formations of armor. CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapons, in particular, will wreak havoc on an armored column. You don't need to roll in for multiple, high risk passes to strafe armored columns when you can have a B-52 with a belly full of CBU-97 and WCMD drop them from 40,000' and standoff range and clear the heavy hardware out in 5 mile chunks at a time, by the hundreds. Failing that, laser guided GBU into the top of a tank as proven very effective, even since DESERT STORM. All of these options can be employed from medium altitude, out of MOST shoulder fired and AAA threat envelopes. And targeting pods with IR/EO/magnification and datalink cueing make this far more efficient than searching for these targets using the Mk1 Mod-0 eyeball. Hell, even an inert concrete bomb dropped on a tank from medium altitude will destroy it; I've been in a flight of F-22s that dropped concrete munitions onto a tank hulk on the Nellis range and split the thing in two. Killing tanks is not hard, and does NOT require the GAU-8 or 30mm shells. In fact, as has been noted previously, the GAU-8 is questionable against the most modern armors. It was already not considered the most effective weapon for killing tanks in DESERT STORM, and even in TASVAL, crews employing Mavericks could kill more tanks, more quickly.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 20:36
by oldiaf
Yes .. Definitely Maverick was the best weapon to destroy tanks in DS

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 20:55
by sferrin
oldiaf wrote:Yes .. Definitely Maverick was the best weapon to destroy tanks in DS



It's hard to argue with a 125lb shaped charge.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 21:12
by SpudmanWP
sferrin wrote:What is that?


SDB1 with LG seeker derived from LJDAM

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/ ... d-Fill-Gap

AC-130Js getting SDB and LSDB love

http://www.janes.com/article/54947/usaf ... j-gunships

The pic that I showed is the a low-speed version of the seeker and Boeing is developing a high-speed version of the seeker for fastjets.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-384550/

SOCOM is using the LSDB in combat.
To better “finish” targets, the command is seeking new weaponry. The command fielded the laser-guided small diameter bomb last year, which is being used in combat. “The user feedback is extremely encouraging,” said Erich Borgstede, program manager for fixed wing munitions at SOCOM. “I now have a difficulty keeping up with the inventory requirements.”


The Production LSDB part number is "GBU-39B/B" and it's NSN number is "1325-01-615-5546"

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 22:56
by geforcerfx
oldiaf wrote:Till the F-35A become ready ... The USAF is stick with A-10 ... How effective the 30mm GAU-8 against the T-14 ?


No they would use the Vipers and Mudhens and other aircraft with the A-10. Which ever can survive best is what woukd be sent in, the a-10 is quickly becoming the least survivable ( even with the mighty bathtub). None of them would be using guns much on the armor. Tank busting is a pgm and area effect system now, rolling in down low and trying plink some 30mm rounds off a tank one or two at a time is 30 years behind, more or less a last resort. Against modern armor the 30mm has had medicore performance from what I have heard and seen tested. Any more you sit up high and rain down dealth targeting as many vehicles as you can at once, finish them and leave the area.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 23:15
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:
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

Word of warning on shaped charge warheads: all of the graphics you see are basically cartoons -- simple shapes that don't reflect the actual shape of a real warhead. I wouldn't try to make any comparisons based on them.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 23:25
by SpudmanWP
The SDB2 graphic is a CAD based drawing so it is quite accurate.

Here is a better version of the Hellfire showing the wraparound fragmentation sleeve.

Image

or this one

Image

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 23:30
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:The SDB2 graphic is a CAD based drawing so it is quite accurate.

Here is a better version of the Hellfire showing the wraparound fragmentation sleeve.

Image

It might be a CAD drawing, but they don't put the real designs in any CAD you will actually get your hands on.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 23:34
by SpudmanWP
So you think that they will spend thousands of dollars drawing up a CAD layout to use for disinformation?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 23:41
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:So you think that they will spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars drawing up a CAD layout to use for disinformation?

No, they spend hundreds of dollars drawing up a CAD layout to illustrate power point presentations in order to sell the program. Then they put simple cone and sphere shapes into it to look more or less like a shaped charge. It would be a lot more expensive to put in the real shape, if they were even allowed to.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 00:02
by XanderCrews
oldiaf wrote:Yes .. Definitely Maverick was the best weapon to destroy tanks in DS


You are quoting out of context. Ignoring the entire post and focusing on the section where the Maverick is superior to the GAU-8 as meaning its the "best"

:roll:

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 01:18
by SpudmanWP
count_to_10 wrote:No, they spend hundreds of dollars drawing up a CAD layout
That CAD layout took 40-60 man hours easy = $thousands.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 01:31
by oldiaf
XanderCrews wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Yes .. Definitely Maverick was the best weapon to destroy tanks in DS


You are quoting out of context. Ignoring the entire post and focusing on the section where the Maverick is superior to the GAU-8 as meaning its the "best"

:roll:

No I didn't meant anything apart from Maverick was superior to other weapons including GAU-8 in tank killing role specifically in DS .. Nothing more.
But what about OIF 2003 was so also ?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 02:09
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:No, they spend hundreds of dollars drawing up a CAD layout
That CAD layout took 40-60 man hours easy = $thousands.

Maybe. That doesn't really change the fact that it would be even more expensive if they tried to include a realistic model of the shaped charge. Nor would it make said models any less classified.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 02:25
by SpudmanWP
It would be simpler and less expensive to "dumb down" the actual CAD model that build one from scratch.

Remember too that the primary purpose of SDB2 is to attack high value targets that are moving or in bad whether. With the added electronics of a 3-way seeker, image & MWR processors, and a datalink, the size of the warhead when compared to the whole body is already small enough. If they make the warhead too specialized vs armored targets, it won't do enough damage to high value targets like bunkers, supply trucks, radar installations, small ships, etc.

Parting thought: Per the SDB2 cutaway it looks like it has two warheads. What else could that large brown (same color as the HEAT warhead) section in the rear be?

Nevermind.. likely it's just the battery for the datalink.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 02:36
by Dragon029
count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:No, they spend hundreds of dollars drawing up a CAD layout
That CAD layout took 40-60 man hours easy = $thousands.

Maybe. That doesn't really change the fact that it would be even more expensive if they tried to include a realistic model of the shaped charge. Nor would it make said models any less classified.


I disagree; I've had a coworker produce a CFD model of this airframe from scratch (measuring it with wire to create sections and then approximating curves to within ~1mm) in his free time over about 2 weeks. Here's his end result.

How complex to shape-charges get? If we're talking about something like this, the same guy could probably reproduce the cone / diamond in less than an hour.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 06:25
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:It depends on the penetrator and how the HEAT warhead is designed.

the design of the HEAT warhead and the material that make the cone can change the penetration value, but wouldn't the ratio of RHA penetration vs steel-concrete penetration is still fixed ( penetrate 2-3 times better vs steel reinforced concrete)


SpudmanWP wrote: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

in my opinion the only reason it looks like that is because SDB 2 warhead is much bigger than AGM-114's warhead, because it doesn't need to carry fuel, and they have around similar size.
And since HEAT warheads penetration are mostly depending on the diameter, it quite unnecessary to make the cone longer

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 06:38
by eloise
Another interesting things is the super heavy Mark 8 AP round on battle ship, that weight 2700 lbs, travelling at Mach 2 have penetration value of 829 mm RHA at point blank
at 9 km, it can penetrate 664 mm RHA
at 38 km, it can penetrate about 357 mm RHA or 15-20 meters of concrete
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
it seems that AP round does alot better vs concrete than HEAT round, however the penetration value of modern weapons are rather impressive forexample : Hellfire can penetrate over 1000 mmRHA, RPG-28 can easily penetrate 700-800 mm RHA, easy to see why many tanks would want APS

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 07:32
by SpudmanWP
HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges


Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 09:45
by charlielima223
Gums wrote: The SBD and Hellfire need guidance all the way to impact.


Unless I miss understood you, just an update or correction. The current Hellfire II is a "fire and forget" system unlike the original Hellfire that needed constant laser designation. The newer versions of the Hellfire II has a dual seeker mode as it could use both laser designation and its own MMW radar seeker. I think the SDB can also be considered "fire and forget" as it uses its own self guidance systems.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 10:31
by tincansailor
eloise wrote:Another interesting things is the super heavy Mark 8 AP round on battle ship, that weight 2700 lbs, travelling at Mach 2 have penetration value of 829 mm RHA at point blank
at 9 km, it can penetrate 664 mm RHA
at 38 km, it can penetrate about 357 mm RHA or 15-20 meters of concrete
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
it seems that AP round does alot better vs concrete than HEAT round, however the penetration value of modern weapons are rather impressive forexample : Hellfire can penetrate over 1000 mmRHA, RPG-28 can easily penetrate 700-800 mm RHA, easy to see why many tanks would want APS


The kind of modern weapons your talking about have much better penetration vs. armor, but they lack the massive force of such heavy shells so they only make small holes in things. Good for destroying tanks but not large spread out targets. In retaliation for the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Oct 1983 the Battleship New Jersey destroyed the HQ of the Syrian Army in Lebanon, killing their commanding general. They used 2,200 lbs. HE Rounds that do both massive kinetic and blast damage. It would have taken many more missiles or bombs to do the same job, at the risk of manned aircraft. The 2,700 lbs. AP shells your talking about would only be used against another Battleship, because they only have a very small powder charge.

Oddly Battleships became more dangerous to each other at longer ranges. In WWI it was discovered plunging fire hitting deck armor at a steep angle could penetrate the vital areas of a ship. Battleships were designed with what was known as "Immunity Zones". That was the range between where plunging fire would defeat deck armor, and direct fire would defeat side armor. The enemy was assumed to have the same caliber guns as the defending ship. In other words a 16" gun battleship was designed to defend against a 16" gun battleship.

In Nov, 1942 the USS Massachusetts hit the French Battleship Jean Bert from 13nm. Her 16"/45 guns firing the same 2,700 lbs AP shells your taking about penetrated 3 armored decks totaling 10.5" of armor. The round landed in an empty 6" magazine. If the magazine had been loaded the Jean Bert might have blown up like HMS Hood did in her battle with the Bismarck.

It would have been interesting if the navy had developed HEAT Rounds. Lesser ships might have been able to better fight over their weight. That is Cruisers vs. Battleships. As it was they took the route of making extra heavy shells. Other navies used 280 lbs. AP Shells while the U.S. used 335 pounders. Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 13:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
tincansailor wrote:Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.

I imagine they would have a charge pointed down to rip open the hull below the waterline.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 18:43
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges


Fair enough, long cone will result in higher penetration value, but wouldn't that work again both RHA and steel reinforced concrete ? thus the ratio stay the same?
btw what exactly the reason that give HEAT warheads such high penetration value compare to bullet of the same size?, i mean if the penetrating ability come from the speed of the copper that been propelled by explosive, then why do they have to make the cone shape?, wouldn't it be easier to design something like a SABOT round that explode when contact with target? and the explosion will propell the dart forward ?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 18:49
by kukemaim
eloise wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges


Fair enough, long cone will result in higher penetration value, but wouldn't that work again both RHA and steel reinforced concrete ? thus the ratio stay the same?
btw what exactly the reason that give HEAT warheads such high penetration value compare to bullet of the same size?, i mean if the penetrating ability come from the speed of the copper that been propelled by explosive, then why do they have to make the cone shape?, wouldn't it be easier to design something like a SABOT round that explode when contact with target? and the explosion will propell the dart forward ?

I'm guessing the reason for such penetration behind HEAT is heat? eh eh :D

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 18:57
by SpudmanWP
In the simplest terms, the length of the cone is akin to the length of a gun barrel. The longer the cone, the higher & faster the mass of the jet.

btw, you cannot accelerate a "dart" without a barrel. Throw a cartridge into the fire and when it explodes, what exits the fire? It's the case, not the bullet.

Also, while a HEAT warhead may penetrate reinforced concrete bunkers, it will not do much damage once inside. The reason why you want the SDB to penetrate the bunker "prior" to it exploding is that you want that explosion "inside" the bunker. A HEAT warhead, by design, explodes outside the bunker and only causes a small amount of damage to the inside, assuming that it penetrates.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 19:11
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:In the simplest terms, the length of the cone is akin to the length of a gun barrel. The longer the cone, the higher & faster the mass of the jet.

btw, you cannot accelerate a "dart" without a barrel. Throw a cartridge into the fire and when it explodes, what exits the fire? It's the case, not the bullet

i dont mean the whole Sabot round but just replaced the shape change liner with the dart part ( a small dart i mean ) , like in this picture
120mm_M830_HEAT-MP-T_T.jpg

iam struggle to understand how come the explosion can accelerate the copper cone but not the dart ?

SpudmanWP wrote:Also, while a HEAT warhead may penetrate reinforced concrete bunkers, it will not do much damage once inside. The reason why you want the SDB to penetrate the bunker "prior" to it exploding is that you want that explosion "inside" the bunker. A HEAT warhead, by design, explodes outside the bunker and only causes a small amount of damage to the inside, assuming that it penetrates.

i do aware of that , i just wondering how deep can something like Sabot , Heat warhead penetrated into steel reinforced concrete , and how deep can bunker buster bomb penetrated in pure RHA :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 19:21
by eloise
Something else that also cause my attention is the EFP
Image
Image
in principle i dont see much different from a EFP and a bullet ,but a EFP can move much much much faster and also penetrate better than a bullet , the question is why ? , and i dont quite understand why they use a disk instead of a dard for EFP either :| ( sorry for my ignorance )

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 19:34
by SpudmanWP
EFPs are fine for punching holes in armor, but they do not do much damage on the inside.

Tanks are disabled or get blown up because the HEAT, EFP, or sabot hits fuel, ammo, the engine, etc.

Bunkers/ships/cargo haulers/etc are different. You are not trying to disable it, but are trying to destroy everything in it.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 19:39
by tincansailor
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.

I imagine they would have a charge pointed down to rip open the hull below the waterline.


Modern destroyers, and cruisers are much smaller then battleships. If you hit amid ships you have to pass through several steel decks before you reach the armored deck. The Iowa Class Battleships have an armored deck up to 7.5" thick. Then you have at least two splinter decks before you get too an engine space or magazine. The 460 lbs. blast fragmentation warhead on the Harpoon Missile would most likely detonate on the first few decks causing serious but not critical damage. Unspent missile fuel could cause serious fires like they did in the Falklands War, but the warhead couldn't penetrate the armored deck.

During the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands South Dakoda was hit on the roof of No2 main turret by a 500 lbs. bomb. Damage was negligible having no effect on operations, or causing any crew casualties. At Second Guadalcanal No2 Barbet was hit by a 14" AP Round from about 9,000 yards. It was dented but not pierced. She suffered numerous hits from 8" and 5" Shells causing heavy casualties above decks and in the Superstructure, but no damaged to critical protected systems.

Even older battleships designed in the 19 teens took many Kamikaze hits with minimal damage, being the least vulnerable ships in the fleet. Arizona blow up at Pearl Harbor after being hit by a 14" AP Shell not a bomb, dropped by a Val Dive Bomber. The Shell went through the Armored Deck just behind No2 Turret into the Forward 14" Magazine. The other 3 Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor were sunk by torpedoes.

Bismarck was reduced to a burning wreck unable to return fire before she was finished off by torpedoes, (The Germans say she only sank after being scuttled.) When she was found a few years ago they discovered her Main Armor Belt wasn't pierced. The Japanese Super Battleships Yamato & Musashi were both sunk by torpedoes, though bombs did heavy damage above deck. Their armored decks were up to 9" thick.

Battleships were most vulnerable to torpedoes, then shell fire form other Battleships, then bombs. Of course very heavy bombs could take out Battleships. The British destroyed Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz with 2, 12,000 lbs, Tallboy Bombs. The Germans sank the modern Italian Battleship Roma with 2, 3,000 lbs. guided bombs. HMS Warspite was crippled by the same weapon. Like Roma the bomb passed through the whole ship exploding under the keel. The Light Cruiser USS Philadelphia amazingly survived a hit from the same kind of bomb.

So if you still had to deal with enemy Battleships I think the best way would be with missiles with shape charges, or very heavy AP Bombs over 2,000 lbs. Of course the best way would by a Submarine putting 4 torpedoes under her keel. Battleships are just tough nuts to crack.

It would be interesting to design a modern Battleship for the 21st Century. She'd have very different weapons, and armor then the leviathans of a 100 years ago. Rail Guns, Fiber Laser Beams, Spaced composite armor, electro reactive armor, carbon fiber armor. Many ideas suggest themselves. Well not to worry, Battleship fans can dream but like the Dinosaurs they can only come back in the movies.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 20:20
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:In the simplest terms, the length of the cone is akin to the length of a gun barrel. The longer the cone, the higher & faster the mass of the jet.

btw, you cannot accelerate a "dart" without a barrel. Throw a cartridge into the fire and when it explodes, what exits the fire? It's the case, not the bullet.

Also, while a HEAT warhead may penetrate reinforced concrete bunkers, it will not do much damage once inside. The reason why you want the SDB to penetrate the bunker "prior" to it exploding is that you want that explosion "inside" the bunker. A HEAT warhead, by design, explodes outside the bunker and only causes a small amount of damage to the inside, assuming that it penetrates.


Yep this is why things like BROACH (and a few others) punch the hole in the concrete with the shaped charge - which an HE warhead then passes through to the inside before detonating.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 20:48
by tincansailor
tincansailor wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.

I imagine they would have a charge pointed down to rip open the hull below the waterline.


My apologies. The short answer to your question would be partly yes. What I meant about Battleships being so much bigger then modern Cruisers and Destroyers is that it's harder to do what your talking about with warheads the size of Western anti-ship missiles. Some Battleships had a beam of 120" or more, with side by side compartments, you'd need a massive blast to blow out the sides of a ship that big. My point was that the only way missiles the size of Western Warheads could penetrate the main citadel of a Battleship would be with shape charges.

On the other hand some Russian Missiles are designed to take out Aircraft Carriers so they have 2,000 lbs warheads. Just by sheer power they would do better against heavily armored ships then current Western Missiles. At least shock damage could be heavy. A Russian Missile with a 2,000 lbs. warhead hitting at Mach 2.5 coming from above might do the job if it didn't explode before it hit the main armor deck. Mach 2.5 is much faster then a free falling bomb so it would have much greater kinetic force. However I don't think their warheads are ether shape charges or AP.

As for the future Rail Guns, and Hypersonic Missiles would have no trouble defeating Battleship armor. Their never coming back but there still amazing pieces of naval history and technology.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 22:34
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:EFPs are fine for punching holes in armor, but they do not do much damage on the inside.

Tanks are disabled or get blown up because the HEAT, EFP, or sabot hits fuel, ammo, the engine, etc.

Bunkers/ships/cargo haulers/etc are different. You are not trying to disable it, but are trying to destroy everything in it.

iam aware of that Spudman, my question however is : why the EFP is designed with a shallow cone (disk) , instead of, you know a dart or something like that, and why something like EFP have such massive velocity compared normal bullet of same diameter

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 23:09
by SpudmanWP
The difference in Velocity when looking at a disk of an EFP vs a dart has to do with mass. The dart is much heavier. Also, the explosive force applied to the disk is spread across it's entire surface which allows for a more efficient transfer of energy.

Last thing, the velocity of a HEAT warhead is much higher than an EFP.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 23:15
by Dragon029
I imagine you'd also be able to pack more explosives into the same form factor with an EFP as well; you wouldn't have to deal with a sabot / space around the dart.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 00:35
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:The difference in Velocity when looking at a disk of an EFP vs a dart has to do with mass. The dart is much heavier. Also, the explosive force applied to the disk is spread across it's entire surface which allows for a more efficient transfer of energy.

Last thing, the velocity of a HEAT warhead is much higher than an EFP.

Well, not the velocity of the warhead as a whole, but the tip of the jet can be as much as four times as fast as sabot dart.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 00:49
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges

Actually, no. The sharper the angle of the cone, the higher the tip velocity, but the lower the jet mass. There is a trade-off similar to what you would expect for guns in that respect. Additionally, there is also a limit in terms of the speed of sound in the metal as to how fast the tip can be made to go.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 04:10
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:The difference in Velocity when looking at a disk of an EFP vs a dart has to do with mass. The dart is much heavier.

.

but then again , heavier penetrator would also mean better penetration
SpudmanWP wrote: Also, the explosive force applied to the disk is spread across it's entire surface which allows for a more efficient transfer of energy.

how about a EFP with discarding SABOT ? (it still have the disk to absorb the entire force )

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 04:32
by SpudmanWP
An EFP has to remain light in order to have sufficient impact energy to pierce the armor.

Remember the formula is .5mV^2

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 06:22
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:An EFP has to remain light in order to have sufficient impact energy to pierce the armor.

Remember the formula is .5mV^2

that formula is for kinetic energy , however if i remember correct , more kinetic energy doesnt always mean better penetration , it have to do with momentum :? for example an arrow or spear will easy penetrate a sand bag , a bullet however wont be able to do that despite much larger kinetic energy
http://www.thudscave.com/npaa/articles/howhard.htm

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 07:22
by SpudmanWP
Impart the same amount of energy to the spear as you did to the bullet and it won't fly war.

A penetrator just weighs too much and it's too difficult to impart the explosive force onto it in order for it to fly straight.

There is always the fallback KISS logic and the trusty "If it were better and easy to do then someone would be doing it".

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 07:28
by charlielima223
SpudmanWP wrote:EFPs are fine for punching holes in armor, but they do not do much damage on the inside.

Tanks are disabled or get blown up because the HEAT, EFP, or sabot hits fuel, ammo, the engine, etc.

Bunkers/ships/cargo haulers/etc are different. You are not trying to disable it, but are trying to destroy everything in it.


yeah I'm going to have to disagree with you there... (the first sentence)

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 16:11
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:Impart the same amount of energy to the spear as you did to the bullet and it won't fly war.

A penetrator just weighs too much and it's too difficult to impart the explosive force onto it in order for it to fly straight.

i would have to disagree with this, you can see they make SABOT penetrator out of very heavy material such as depleted uranium, if weight was a problem then another material have been chosen

SpudmanWP wrote:There is always the fallback KISS logic and the trusty "If it were better and easy to do then someone would be doing it".

iam aware of this but i think there some other reason for the design

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 16:33
by SpudmanWP
The reason that an EFP is a flat disk is so that the explosive force can easily impart its energy in a controlled manner.

You cannot do that with a sabot, as just a minute change in center of force will cause it to spin out of control. The rear surface area of a sabot is just too small.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 19:14
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:The reason that an EFP is a flat disk is so that the explosive force can easily impart its energy in a controlled manner.

You cannot do that with a sabot, as just a minute change in center of force will cause it to spin out of control. The rear surface area of a sabot is just too small.

the sabot dart also have a disk to absorb all the energy
Image
Image

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 20:07
by SpudmanWP
The disk is too small of a ratio when compared to the length of the sabot. Make the disk too thin and it warps, too thick and it adds too much mass.

IT... CAN... NOT... BE... DONE...

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 20:22
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:The reason that an EFP is a flat disk is so that the explosive force can easily impart its energy in a controlled manner.

You cannot do that with a sabot, as just a minute change in center of force will cause it to spin out of control. The rear surface area of a sabot is just too small.

Different mechanisms. The sabot dart is fired out of a gun barrel over the course of tens of milliseconds, propelled by gun powder (mostly nitrocellulose), and the mass of the sabot is effectively wasted, as it does not contribute to penetration. An EFP is accelerated by the shock of a detonating explosive over the course of a microsecond or so, and just about all of the mass of the EFP (which is often copper, but can be something more dense) contributes to penetration. Both typically have a velocity somewhat less 2 km/s, but the sabot dart can fly much farther and penetrate deeper, while the EFP is all together more compact and can be / has to be fired from a warhead.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 00:45
by Gums
Salute!

Sorry, "tater" ( aka Spuds), but I go with Charlie about internal damage in the tanks by pure kinetic warheads. Go see a real T-72 turret with a few 30mm GAU-8 holes in both sides. That DU core and other stuff surely flew around inside and made things tough for the crew, ya think? However, I would still take the Maverick warhead ( just to make sure, heh heh. That thing is huge.).

I also recant part of my statement about the launch and leave capabilities of the SDB and new Hellfire. Seems a few SDB have a true launch and leave capability ( maybe 20% and where are they deployed and what are future plans?), and only the latest Hellfires have it ( not sure if the Marine AH-1S+ can use the MMW seeker versions. I worked on the upgrade for that helo right after Desert Storm to develop a better armament system. The crews wanted the 4-blade rotor more than new avionics and got their way back then. New Super Cobras have much more updated vionice.) Niether autonomous SBD or Hellfire MMW ready for prime time in a CAS situation, IMHO, but good for BAI and a coordinated strikes way back in "Injun Country". Suckers could also be really nice versus small ships and such.

My point is I felt lots more comfortable if I knew the missile was locked on to the target before I hit the pickle button. In the Viper we had both the chirp and the diamond symbol in the TD box, so the sucker was locked and tracking. Shoot, get lock on the wingie and rinse, repeat. Slammer employment easier and more targets to kill from 15 or 20 miles out. Only other scenario would be if I could see the missile seeker lock on after I launched and was 20 miles away.

Gums opines.....

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 12:40
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:The disk is too small of a ratio when compared to the length of the sabot. Make the disk too thin and it warps, too thick and it adds too much mass.

IT... CAN... NOT... BE... DONE...

I recently saw this
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... charge.htm
:? seem like it have to do with some thing called Monroe Effect
Hydrodynamic penetration is a complex mechanism which begins to appear when the strike velocity exceeds a critical value, typically about 1,150m/s for current penetrators against rolled homogenous armor (RHA) targets. Full hydrodynamic behavior does not occur until the strike velocity reaches several kilometers per second, such as occurs with shaped charge munitions. At strike velocities less than about 1,150m/s penetration of metal armor occurs mainly through the mechanism of plastic deformation. A typical penetrator achieves a strike velocity around 1,500m/s to 1,700m/s, depending on range, and therefore target effects generally exhibit both hydrodynamic behaviour and plastic deformation.

A number of models of varying degrees of complexity have been developed to predict long rod penetrator performance. A common feature that emerges from these models is the importance of a high strike velocity to exploit more fully the hydrodynamic penetration mechanism, which, in turn, is further improved by the use of longer penetrators having higher densities relative to the target material density. This is amply supported by experimental work.

Shaped charge is indeed an extraordinary phenomenon that is beyond the scale of normal physics, which explains why its fundamental theoretical mechanism is by no means fully understood.

The shaped charge jet tip reaches 10 kms-l some 40 µs after detonation, giving a cone tip acceleration of about 25 million g. At this acceleration the tip would reach the speed of light, were this possible, in around 1.5 seconds. But of course, it reaches a terminal velocity after only 40 millionths of a second. It is difficult to think of any other terrestrial event as fast as a shaped charge jet tip. The jet tail has a velocity of 2-5 kms-l and so the jet stretches out to a length of about 8 cone diameters (CDs) before particulation occurs. The stretching occurs at a high strain rate, requiring the cone material to have excellent dynamic ductility at temperatures up to about 450°C. On reaching a target, the pressure developed between the jet tip and the forming crater can be as high as 10 Mbar (10 million atmospheres), several times the highest pressure predicted in the Earth's core.

It is universally agreed that conical liner collapse and target penetration both occur by hydrodynamic flow. However, it has been established by X-ray diffraction that the jet is solid metal and not molten. Additionally, best estimates of jet temperature by incandescence colour suggest a mean value of about 450°C, and copper melts at 1083°C at atmospheric pressure. So the following conundrum is the first confusion: The jet appears to behave like a fluid, and yet it is known to be a solid. One recent theory that would help explain this is that the jet has a molten core but with a solid outer sheath.

The hypervelocity hydrodynamic impact (unlike lower speed KE penetration) results in a mushroom head penetration, such that the hole diameter is larger than the penetrator diameter. The dynamic compressive yield stress of the target is exceeded by a factor of at least one thousand times, so that only the densities of the target and jet materials are important. Both materials flow as if they were fluids and the penetration event can be modelled quite accurately using the Bernoulli equation for incompressible flow to give the well known hydrodynamic penetration equation.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 13:03
by eloise
tincansailor wrote:So if you still had to deal with enemy Battleships I think the best way would be with missiles with shape charges, or very heavy AP Bombs over 2,000 lbs. Of course the best way would by a Submarine putting 4 torpedoes under her keel. Battleships are just tough nuts to crack.

It would be interesting to design a modern Battleship for the 21st Century. She'd have very different weapons, and armor then the leviathans of a 100 years ago. Rail Guns, Fiber Laser Beams, Spaced composite armor, electro reactive armor, carbon fiber armor. Many ideas suggest themselves. Well not to worry, Battleship fans can dream but like the Dinosaurs they can only come back in the movies.

i think to disable or mission kill a battle ship by modern antiship missiles isn't very hard , most antiship missiles are precision guided weapon , modern missiles such as SLAM-ER , JSM , NSM ..etc can choose their exact impact point , the fire control radar of battle ship are not armored ( because it not possible to put them behind armor ), the citadel have glass window that can be easily penetrated by antiship missiles
7892179036_d310c821ba_b.jpg

one shot into these area and the battle ship is close to useless

On the other hand sinking a battle ship is extremely hard , i dont think bombs like GBU-12 , GBU-31 , GBU-28 can actually penetrate battleship armor ( it seem that a kinetic energy penetrator ,it is about 15-20 times easiler to penetrate concrete compared to RHA ),
missiles with HEAT warhead can easily penetrate battle ship armor but , the massive size of the ship with alot of space mean they will do very little damage , the ammo compartment is very far from anywhere the HEAT warhead can reach
Image
and all a HEAT warhead can do is make a really tiny hole , if there isn't anything there to explode or burn then it will be just a hole
Image

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 16:16
by count_to_10
Eloise, killing a battleship has always been about hitting the powder magazine (unless you intend to pound it all day long). While the side armor can be meter's thick, the deck armor can't be, and dive bombers were able to get their bombs through in WWII. Chances are a modern penetrating bomb would go right through, and, if aimed correctly, light off the magazine. If I'm not mistaken, anti-ship missiles would do the same when they are set to do a "pop-up" maneuver and attack from the top (though the videos of test attacks I have seen have all been side attack).

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 17:41
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:Eloise, killing a battleship has always been about hitting the powder magazine (unless you intend to pound it all day long). While the side armor can be meter's thick, the deck armor can't be, and dive bombers were able to get their bombs through in WWII. Chances are a modern penetrating bomb would go right through, and, if aimed correctly, light off the magazine. If I'm not mistaken, anti-ship missiles would do the same when they are set to do a "pop-up" maneuver and attack from the top (though the videos of test attacks I have seen have all been side attack).



HUGE difference between a 1900lb AP shell fired from a 16" gun and a 500lb blast warhead (Harpoon). Saw a picture of a Kormoran warhead once. Looked like a short, fat artillery shell with maybe a dozen conical divots arranged around the cylindrical section. Don't know if they were suppose to behave like shaped charges or SFFs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS.34_Kormoran

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 19:09
by cantaz
eloise wrote:On the other hand sinking a battle ship is extremely hard , i dont think bombs like GBU-12 , GBU-31 , GBU-28 can actually penetrate battleship armor ( it seem that a kinetic energy penetrator ,it is about 15-20 times easiler to penetrate concrete compared to RHA ),


The Germans sank the Roma with 2 x 3,000lb bombs of inferior metallurgy, guidance, fusing, attack angle and release velocity to the GBU-28. That's a fact.

I have little doubt that with enough data on the internal arrangement and armour scheme, 2 well-placed GBU-28s can sink any battleship that ever sailed.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 23:30
by castlebravo
eloise wrote:i think to disable or mission kill a battle ship by modern antiship missiles isn't very hard , most antiship missiles are precision guided weapon , modern missiles such as SLAM-ER , JSM , NSM ..etc can choose their exact impact point , the fire control radar of battle ship are not armored ( because it not possible to put them behind armor ), the citadel have glass window that can be easily penetrated by antiship missiles
7892179036_d310c821ba_b.jpg

one shot into these area and the battle ship is close to useless


The conning tower portion of the citadel behind those windows is protected by ~18" of armor. The deck armor however is only ~6", and a single well placed GBU-28 would likely split the ship in half. A Mark 8 16" Super-Heavy armor piercing shell has about ~40lb of WWII era explosives in it compared the GBU-28's 600-900lbs of modern HE.

Image

Image

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 04:06
by eloise
count_to_10 wrote:Eloise, killing a battleship has always been about hitting the powder magazine (unless you intend to pound it all day long). While the side armor can be meter's thick, the deck armor can't be, and dive bombers were able to get their bombs through in WWII. .

even thought the deck armor is thinner than the citadel and the turret , they are still very very thick
For example the Yamoto have 410 mm side armor , 650 mm face turret armor ,540 mm of Barbettes armor , the deck is thinnest but still around 230 mm of steel , that is alot of steel to go through without HEAT warhead


the super heavy Mark 8 AP round on battle ship, that weight 2700 lbs, travelling at Mach 2 can penetrate about 357 mm of steel or 15-20 meters of concrete at 38 km
so a penetration weapon using kinetic energy alone can penetrate around 40-56 times deeper again concrete compared to steel
(GBU-28) bomb is capable of penetrating 100 feet (30 meters )of earth or 20 feet (6 meters ) of concrete so theoretically speaking it should be able to penetrate around 120-140 mm of steel ( around 1/2 of deck armor )

castlebravo wrote: A Mark 8 16" Super-Heavy armor piercing shell has about ~40lb of WWII era explosives in it compared the GBU-28's 600-900lbs of modern HE.


that is because the Mark8 is mostly steel cone to allow it penetrate armor :mrgreen: , GBU-28 on the other hand have much thinner case since it wasn't designed to penetrate steel but only concrete and soil

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 04:21
by cantaz
What part of dropping over 4,000lb of high yield steel at high subsonic from 30,000' makes it inferior to half that weight in shell fired from a cannon?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 04:31
by eloise
cantaz wrote:What part of dropping over 4,000lb of high yield steel at high subsonic from 30,000' makes it inferior to half that weight in shell fired from a cannon?

one move at mach 2 the others is subsonic , one have very very thick penetration cone while the other have much thinner casing
Image
Image

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 05:01
by spazsinbad
There is a lot of info online about the loss of HMS Hood with discussions about shells and all the etceteras - onesuch: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... -30817.htm

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 06:43
by sergei
kukemaim wrote:
eloise wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges


Fair enough, long cone will result in higher penetration value, but wouldn't that work again both RHA and steel reinforced concrete ? thus the ratio stay the same?
btw what exactly the reason that give HEAT warheads such high penetration value compare to bullet of the same size?, i mean if the penetrating ability come from the speed of the copper that been propelled by explosive, then why do they have to make the cone shape?, wouldn't it be easier to design something like a SABOT round that explode when contact with target? and the explosion will propell the dart forward ?

I'm guessing the reason for such penetration behind HEAT is heat? eh eh :D

The temperature is not very high less than 800 ° pressure has a pivotal role.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 07:49
by tincansailor
cantaz wrote:
eloise wrote:On the other hand sinking a battle ship is extremely hard , i dont think bombs like GBU-12 , GBU-31 , GBU-28 can actually penetrate battleship armor ( it seem that a kinetic energy penetrator ,it is about 15-20 times easiler to penetrate concrete compared to RHA ),


The Germans sank the Roma with 2 x 3,000lb bombs of inferior metallurgy, guidance, fusing, attack angle and release velocity to the GBU-28. That's a fact.

I have little doubt that with enough data on the internal arrangement and armour scheme, 2 well-placed GBU-28s can sink any battleship that ever sailed.


Yes I agree a GBU-28 could kill a Battleship. Assuming an aircraft that can carry a 5,000 pound bomb can keep a Laser on a moving target while it's shooting back the bomb could hit a magazine. Alternatively it could pass through the ship and detonate under it like what happened to the Roma, Warspite, and Philadelphia. Warspite and Philadelphia survived. What happened to them was equivalent to hitting a mine.

One of the factors not being discussed in killing a Battleship is that it has much better active defenses then a Russian tank. WWII American Battleships had the best fire control, and AAA defense in the world at that time. When the Iowa's were brought back in the 80's the original FC was retained because there was nothing better to replace them with. The MK-37 fire control system was so good attacking US BB's was almost suicide.

In the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands South Dakoda was escorting Enterprise. She had recently been equipped with a strong battery of 40mm guns, along with a small supply of 5" proximity fuse shells. During the Battle she was attacked by 65 Japanese aircraft. She was hit once by a 500 lbs. bomb on the roof of No2 Main Turret, causing no significant damage. In return SD shot down 26 aircraft, the record for any ship in history.

Bring the pigeons a little closer. Considering that SD had 4 fewer 5" guns then her sister ships in the SD class she still was able to do that. In Oct 1942 the Japanese still had competent pilots. After this little remembered battle the Japanese weren't willing to engage in a carrier battle for over a year while they trained new pilots. In fact they didn't commit their carriers again till June 1944.

Now granted they were dealing with aircraft flying at little over 300mph but their radar can still track targets twice that speed and train their guns on them from a distance. I'm sure Gums and spazsinbad can testify to the effectiveness of that kind of defense. 10, 5" guns can fire 120 rounds of proximity shells a minute. I'd like to hear their thoughts on attacking a Battleship using bombs? I know 4 of the guns were taken off from each side but this is my fantasy so there back.

Now since this fight would take place today we could give the Iowa's some upgrades. Upgrade the search radar. Replace the old twin 5" turrets with modern single 5" 62 mounts. Remove the 40, and 20mm guns and replace them with 2 Phalanx, and 2 Sea Rams on each side. You then install a small VLS between the stacks for Evolved Sea Sparrow ESSM. Using a MK-48 VLS you could put in 32 ESSM's. Install some harpoon replacement launchers and your ready to go out looking for trouble.

Now I don't think there's a chance in Hell that they'll ever do what I'm talking about. The 4 Iowa Class BB's are destined to remain floating museums. Remember I said this was my fantasy. But if they did what I'm talking about what would everyone here think about attacking that kind of ship?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 08:17
by spazsinbad
To be fair the A4G role from beginning to mid 1970s was Fleet Air Defence - get fast attackers and any big aircraft approaching with big missiles, before they could be fired, and to chase away or shoot down shadowing aircraft. No one had plans for enemy warships as such in our area of operations. Later as interest was shown in the Indian Ocean, with Russian ships motoring there, I'm told then that may have become a priority; although some Big Russian WarShips in the late 1970s really bristled with armament of all kinds, as I recall vaguely.

We did act as attacking aircraft for our own ships, in the beginning of the era of surface to air missiles in the RAN, as well as the main naval gun. No one is looking at the tracking gyrations of ship weapons, as a pilot, during an attack - there are other things to be concerned with. I did however a couple of times venture out in the back of a Skyhawk trainer (or even in our actual training jets as a backseat supervisor of sorts) to watch the missile installation bobbing around, along with the tracking guns - a little unnerving. The Gunnery Officers insisted we would all be shot down but I cannot say about any real life attacks.

The Falklands War illustrated this equation with missiles not guiding well, or ships not able to fire, because the aircraft were too low or for whatever reason. The attackers did not have it easy either, so it can be quite a lottery out there.

I did a lot of Delmar Target Towing - it was not unusual for an inert shell to take out the towed target (or it just fell off) perhaps difficult to say from my perspective; although the firing ship would have a good idea. Flying through a barrage of proximity fuzed shrapnel would probably not end well. Early on we had no high drag bombs so all attacks would be popup from extreme low level over the sea to a dive release. OhOh. The idea then was to saturate the target with aircraft arriving for the attack from multiple directions at the same time - O Yeah. Bombing a target at sea with the fixed depressible gunsight was not easy with few clues about anything, except the sea and wind direction perhaps and the target was always maneuvering to their best advantage to spoil our attack. We were not practice bombing real targets (except towed splash targets having to be towed in a straight line) by the way. We could only ever simulate these operations.

Depending on our target (no battleships) we discussed (or the AWIs discussed more correctly) methods to do damage to fire control and then either use second wave aircraft to do lethal damage or the first wave return for another run. It could depend on the target. Our A4Gs were never in a real war. The Kiwis did shoot rounds in front of a fleeing illegal fishing vessel once - our part of the world (apart from earlier Konfrontasi and Vietnam) was relatively benign in the 1970s (as a sweeping generalisation).

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 09:40
by tincansailor
Gums wrote:Salute!

Sorry, "tater" ( aka Spuds), but I go with Charlie about internal damage in the tanks by pure kinetic warheads. Go see a real T-72 turret with a few 30mm GAU-8 holes in both sides. That DU core and other stuff surely flew around inside and made things tough for the crew, ya think? However, I would still take the Maverick warhead ( just to make sure, heh heh. That thing is huge.).

I also recant part of my statement about the launch and leave capabilities of the SDB and new Hellfire. Seems a few SDB have a true launch and leave capability ( maybe 20% and where are they deployed and what are future plans?), and only the latest Hellfires have it ( not sure if the Marine AH-1S+ can use the MMW seeker versions. I worked on the upgrade for that helo right after Desert Storm to develop a better armament system. The crews wanted the 4-blade rotor more than new avionics and got their way back then. New Super Cobras have much more updated vionice.) Niether autonomous SBD or Hellfire MMW ready for prime time in a CAS situation, IMHO, but good for BAI and a coordinated strikes way back in "Injun Country". Suckers could also be really nice versus small ships and such.

My point is I felt lots more comfortable if I knew the missile was locked on to the target before I hit the pickle button. In the Viper we had both the chirp and the diamond symbol in the TD box, so the sucker was locked and tracking. Shoot, get lock on the wingie and rinse, repeat. Slammer employment easier and more targets to kill from 15 or 20 miles out. Only other scenario would be if I could see the missile seeker lock on after I launched and was 20 miles away.

Gums opines.....


gums my friend your flying in an F-35A. You detect a column of 10, T-90 tanks, plus support vehicles 15mi behind enemy lines. you share the data with your army buddies who pass it on to a battery of 155mm howitzers. They fire a volley of 18 guided Excalibur rounds. You watch calmly as all the tanks explode at the same time, along with their supporting vehicles. Scratch one enemy tank company.

Even in WWII an American battery of 6 guns could deliver an 18 shell time on target attack. That is all 18 shell's would arrive on target at the same time. Using spotter planes they could target and wipe out a whole German troop column with no warning. German trucks had to constantly change speed to make it harder to target the convoy. The Germans thought American time on target attacks were even worse then the massive Russian bombardments using hundreds of guns. The U.S. Attacks were more accurate, and came with no warning. Late in the war they started using proximity fuses to create deadly airbursts that were devastating to infantry.

Our army friends seem to be a little ahead of the other services in the game of killing tanks. Not surprising considering the jobs a little more in their wheel house. I'd like to see the army fight an aircraft carrier. They don't seem to be able to handle the F-35 ether. You can't fight what you can't see. However the Artillery is still the "King of Battle". Until we get the kind of improvements your talking about in the SDB II & the Hellfire it might not be so bad calling in army artillery fire on enemy tank units.

Not even a unit of MBT's would do very well if their whole base area is blasted in a MLRS attack. Even if the tanks survive all their support equipment would be destroyed, and any crew outside their tanks would be killed. So lets not be selfish give the army a chance to get in on the action. Take care.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 10:00
by kukemaim
tincansailor wrote:
gums my friend your flying in an F-35A. You detect a column of 10, T-90 tanks, plus support vehicles 15mi behind enemy lines. you share the data with your army buddies who pass it on to a battery of 155mm howitzers. They fire a volley of 18 guided Excalibur rounds. You watch calmly as all the tanks explode at the same time, along with their supporting vehicles. Scratch one enemy tank company.



Wouldn't the Excalibur have to land a direct hit to destroy a tank? Is Excalibur capable for such precision on a moving target?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 14:19
by oldiaf
The Armata will be declassified when adopted to the service with Russian army :
http://sputniknews.com/military/2015101 ... uyers.html

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 14:27
by charlielima223
tincansailor wrote:Our army friends seem to be a little ahead of the other services in the game of killing tanks. Not surprising considering the jobs a little more in their wheel house. I'd like to see the army fight an aircraft carrier. They don't seem to be able to handle the F-35 ether. You can't fight what you can't see. However the Artillery is still the "King of Battle". Until we get the kind of improvements your talking about in the SDB II & the Hellfire it might not be so bad calling in army artillery fire on enemy tank units.

Not even a unit of MBT's would do very well if their whole base area is blasted in a MLRS attack. Even if the tanks survive all their support equipment would be destroyed, and any crew outside their tanks would be killed. So lets not be selfish give the army a chance to get in on the action. Take care.


It seems that people do not fully understand it when they call artillery the "king of battle", and it is... for the ground assets. Compared to air assets (and I lament to say this) artillery isn't the "king of battle" especially in the context that you are describing. As destructive as modern day artillery is, they still take a back seat to air to ground interdiction, strike, and traditionally (in certain conditions) CAS. Artillery is often referred to as the "king of battle" because of their ability to support front line ground units. Conventional/traditional thought is that all ground units move with artillery support or they do not move at all. Artillery is referred to as the "King of Battle" and the Infantry is sometimes called the "Queen of Battle".

Just a history note. When the AH-1 was starting to see action in Vietnam, the US Army categorized them as "Aerial Rocket Artillery. Possibly as a way not to offend the USAF.

The Excalibur round you mention is very very good round (how they managed to put a precision guidance system into an artillery shell and make it work is beyond me :shock:). In the "open battle field" regular artillery does just fine (area saturation). The M982 from my understanding came out as a need to have a precision round offering greater flexibility while reducing collateral damage in built up urban/populated areas (Iraq). Originally the M982 Excalibur saw limited use (and still does when compared to conventional artillery) but the BDA and future potential for it justified the US military to increase production.

@ tincansailor
Also must ask... what is "wrong" or limits the current AGM-114 when comparing it to the M982 Excalibur? Other than the fact that the M982 is a 155mm artillery shell... what do you think limits the current Hellfire II missiles? You do know that the Hellfire missiles was originally (and still is) designed to be a dedicate anti-tank missile right? Also the up comming GBU-53 SDB II has the capability to attack moving targets, something (to my understanding) the current GBU-39 SDB lacks. Besides having a 250lbs bomb with a close 200lbs penetrating/blast fragmentation warhead dropping atop a tank at terminal velocities that are in excess of 600mph should be more than enough to either badly damage a tank enough to render it completely mission inoperable or destroy it.

tincansailor wrote:gums my friend your flying in an F-35A. You detect a column of 10, T-90 tanks, plus support vehicles 15mi behind enemy lines. you share the data with your army buddies who pass it on to a battery of 155mm howitzers. They fire a volley of 18 guided Excalibur rounds. You watch calmly as all the tanks explode at the same time, along with their supporting vehicles. Scratch one enemy tank company.


kukemaim wrote:Wouldn't the Excalibur have to land a direct hit to destroy a tank? Is Excalibur capable for such precision on a moving target?


To answer the question and hypothetical... the mentioned tank column needs to be stationary for the Excalibur to work the way it was presented.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 15:23
by cantaz
eloise wrote:one move at mach 2 the others is subsonic , one have very very thick penetration cone while the other have much thinner casing


Thanks to its length, the GBU-28 has a sectional density that is far superior to any 16" shell. There's a reason why modern tank guns prefer subcaliber APDS-variety rounds over full caliber shells.

One finds that there is only 630lb of HE in a bomb that weighs 4,700lb. That's 13% filler by weight, versus about 40-45% for conventional bombs. That's less filler than a 2,000lb Mk84. Meaning the bomb is mostly steel, with proportionally thicker walls than standard bombs, and that's better steel than what was available for the Mk 8.

eloise wrote: the super heavy Mark 8 AP round on battle ship, that weight 2700 lbs, travelling at Mach 2 can penetrate about 357 mm of steel or 15-20 meters of concrete at 38 km
so a penetration weapon using kinetic energy alone can penetrate around 40-56 times deeper again concrete compared to steel
(GBU-28) bomb is capable of penetrating 100 feet (30 meters )of earth or 20 feet (6 meters ) of concrete so theoretically speaking it should be able to penetrate around 120-140 mm of steel ( around 1/2 of deck armor )


And you need to re-read the penetration table, you mixed up your feet and meters. At your given distance of 38km, the Mk 8 AP penetrates between 15 to 20 feet of reinforced concrete, or 4.6 to 6.1 meters. Versus that of >20 feet of reinforced concrete for the GBU-28 (it grossly overpenetrated 22 feet of it), assuming that the "reinforced concrete" between what was used to test the Mk 8 way back is the same as our modern standards.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Using the corrected units, we're suddenly looking at very similar reinforced concrete penetration values for both weapons, which if we were inclined to convert into armour penetration using the 16" Mk 8's tables, would point to the GBU-28 overmatching any and all deck armour. Particularly since the GBU-28 can dictate its angle of impact to near 90 degrees.

I'm not saying that a 16" projectile isn't a great penetrator, it sure as hell is, given that it's a massive projectile out of a massive gun. But to suggest that a GBU-28 is so inferior as to be unable to defeat a BB is simply not true.

Ultimately, the point is not 16" gun vs GBU-28, it's GBU-28 vs deck armour.

But given that this thread is entirely about something else, I'll apologize for my part in this violation and see myself out.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 15:59
by SpudmanWP
1. Excalibur is currently a GPS guided round and not capable of engaging moving targets. Raytheon has already started work on a GPS/SAL Excalibur round and has already fired one in a test.

2. A GBU-28 would not be the optimal round as it limits the magazine depth of the plane that caries it. A GBU-56(V)/B would be the better option (BLU-109 based LJDAM). Combine the larger magazine depth with dropping from 45k-50k feet and you will get plenty of penetration. Being laser guided means that it can pick the exact spot to hit so it can aim specifically for the magazines, CIC, the engine room, etc.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 17:14
by Gums
Salute!

Like Spaz, we thought about and tried to develop tactics to use for "maritme" ops, but had no equivalent to Red Flag or Green Flag. Sluf folks were getting vibes from HHQ that we would have to develop and practice fleet attack tactics and such to augment the nasal radiators that had the early Harpoons. By the time I flew the Viper, the USN and RAF and Norwegian and Danish folks had most of the responsibility for the Western Hemisphere. USN also had the most responsibility for the Pacific, along with the Koreans. Folks from OZ had the 'vaark, and I assume they had a maritime role as I saw their sfwe for the Harpoon. One of my programs was integrating the Harpoon on Block 30/40 USAF Vipers. The two sub-contractors bitched at the DoD and we finally got the code for the Harpoon that taxpayers had paid for for 20 years or so - got the Oz 'vaark code!!! Oh well, I had many great activities in my life and my timing and background was "just right".

RE: WW2 fire control, amd more.....
Now granted they were dealing with aircraft flying at little over 300mph but their radar can still track targets twice that speed and train their guns on them from a distance. I'm sure Gums and spazsinbad can testify to the effectiveness of that kind of defense. 10, 5" guns can fire 120 rounds of proximity shells a minute. I'd like to hear their thoughts on attacking a Battleship using bombs? I know 4 of the guns were taken off from each side but this is my fantasy so there back.


As Spaz has opined, we USAF airdales also opted for the multi plane attack from around the clock - was flying the Sluf then and we had no anti-ship missiles so it was gonna be popup and loft/dive attacks. We also took ECM birds with us like the EB-66, and then later the Spark Vaark. USN already had the ECM A-6 E birds, so a coordinated attack might have had some degree of success ( ya can't kill ALL the attackers, huh? But we saw that at Midway with the topr guys, so don't get cocky.)

No doubt that the prox fuze enhanced the 5 inch gun effectiveness in WW2. I have to check, but the 85 mm doofers I saw over Hanoi in '72 may have had prox fuzes. Flew right over a site one day, and it was hosing away at the guys in front of me. The self-destruct feature was obvious, as we saw air bursts up above at between 25,000 to 30,000 feet. My opinion is that the 37 and 57 AAA got more kills than the 85's with their Firecan dar.

Nowadays, it's getting close enough and then targeting the ships with great accuracy. Saw it in the Persian Gulf when an Iraqi jet nailed a USN boat. Saw it during the Falklands.

Enuf about the naval stuff.

So the anti-armor deal is mainly finding and targeting and launching an effective weapon. Looks to this old fart that we have a good menu, and also seems we have much better targeting capabilities than 25 years ago and "Storm" attacks. I also like the "reminder" that the Stubbie can talk with other folks about targets and such. This will greatly enhance effectiveness if we can avoid fratricide and allowing a critical target to keep moving while all his buddies are rubble.

later,

Gums opines....

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 02:01
by tincansailor
kukemaim wrote:
tincansailor wrote:
gums my friend your flying in an F-35A. You detect a column of 10, T-90 tanks, plus support vehicles 15mi behind enemy lines. you share the data with your army buddies who pass it on to a battery of 155mm howitzers. They fire a volley of 18 guided Excalibur rounds. You watch calmly as all the tanks explode at the same time, along with their supporting vehicles. Scratch one enemy tank company.



Wouldn't the Excalibur have to land a direct hit to destroy a tank? Is Excalibur capable for such precision on a moving target?


At the current time yes. Another poster said the army is working on an Excalibur Round that can track mobile targets. However even dumb rounds can do the job. In WWII a battery of 6 guns could lay down 18 shells in what was called a "Time on Target" fire mission. That is all the shells arrive at the same time. They could take out a moving German truck convoy. Using a spotter plane they could get a speed estimate and lay down a fire pattern in the predicted location of the convoy when the shells would arrive.

Howitzers are indirect fire weapons so their rounds come down at steep angles. If you hit a tank column rounds will be hitting them in their thinly armored tops. A plunging 155mm shell even if it's not AP per say may pierce the top of the Turret, or the engine deck destroying the engine, and starting a fire burning out the tank. Tanks always try to run out from under artillery barrages because they know how dangerous it can be. Even in an age before smart rounds tanks never wanted to be spotted by gunners. No one wants to be spotted by gunners, but tanks are a high value target.

American Artillery can mass fire to wipe out large target areas. An Infantry Division can mass all 54, 155mm Howitzers and destroy just about anything you might want to destroy. All Batteries can link in one massive fire mission. 3 MLRS launchers can take out a sq. km from 40mi away, so the full Battalion attached to a Division could take out 6kms at a time before moving and reloading. No wonder the Iraqi's called the MLRS "Steel Rain".

Our problem hasn't been a lack of firepower it's been using it in droplets to keep down collateral damage. In an all out fight between Russian and American Forces the issue would be settled by who got to target who first. If you can see it you can kill it. The F-35's ISR capabilities are lost on it's critics who think a fighter planes value is measured only by how well it does in a turning fight with another fighter.

Situational awareness is as vital in ground war as in the air. The game is to know where the bad guys are, and blind the enemy to our forces location and movements. F-35's, J-STARS. drones, satellites, ground radar, ELANT, helicopters, scout troops all work together to form the overall picture, and deign that too the enemy. Even if the F-35 never drops a weapon to kill a tank it'll still be doing it's job.

My point is that the army has lots of ways to kill tanks from a long way off, SDB II and new Hellfire's are just icing on the cake. F-35's will be able to stalk tanks like Hawks stalk field Mice. They'll never see them coming.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 04:42
by popcorn
Then there's this thing, a SDB-1 mated to a MLRS rocket to provide field artillery a powerful capability not previously avaliable vs. fixed targets. An obvious evolution would see a SDB-2 variant for use against mobile targets. Repurposing proven systems is relatively low-risk in terms of time and money. Might even have potential as an anti-ship weapon given it's 150km range.

https://youtu.be/PdM0Ci13eJAhttps://you ... dM0Ci13eJA

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 04:49
by eloise
cantaz wrote:
Thanks to its length, the GBU-28 has a sectional density that is far superior to any 16" shell. There's a reason why modern tank guns prefer subcaliber APDS-variety rounds over full caliber shells.

One finds that there is only 630lb of HE in a bomb that weighs 4,700lb. That's 13% filler by weight, versus about 40-45% for conventional bombs. That's less filler than a 2,000lb Mk84. Meaning the bomb is mostly steel, with proportionally thicker walls than standard bombs, and that's better steel than what was available for the Mk 8.

And you need to re-read the penetration table, you mixed up your feet and meters. At your given distance of 38km, the Mk 8 AP penetrates between 15 to 20 feet of reinforced concrete, or 4.6 to 6.1 meters. Versus that of >20 feet of reinforced concrete for the GBU-28 (it grossly overpenetrated 22 feet of it), assuming that the "reinforced concrete" between what was used to test the Mk 8 way back is the same as our modern standards.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Using the corrected units, we're suddenly looking at very similar reinforced concrete penetration values for both weapons, which if we were inclined to convert into armour penetration using the 16" Mk 8's tables, would point to the GBU-28 overmatching any and all deck armour. Particularly since the GBU-28 can dictate its angle of impact to near 90 degrees.

I'm not saying that a 16" projectile isn't a great penetrator, it sure as hell is, given that it's a massive projectile out of a massive gun. But to suggest that a GBU-28 is so inferior as to be unable to defeat a BB is simply not true.

Ultimately, the point is not 16" gun vs GBU-28, it's GBU-28 vs deck armour..

:doh: oh yes ,i just re check it , turn out you are right , i mixed between feet and meters again :bang: ( btw i heard the standard concrete to estimate weapon penetration is 5000 psi steel reinforce concrete )
that being said , apart from GBU-57 and GBU-28 ,other fighter launch missiles , bombs are unlikely to cause significant damage to a battleship ( exclude their radar ,optics ) , if battle ship had Chobham armor like modern tank instead of just steel ,they are likely to be unsink able by most weapon apart from missile with nuclear warhead or massive torpedo

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 05:00
by eloise
popcorn wrote:Then there's this thing, a SDB-1 mated to a MLRS rocket to provide field artillery a powerful capability not previously avaliable vs. fixed targets. An obvious evolution would see a SDB-2 variant for use against mobile targers. Repurposing proven systems is relatively low-risk in terms of time and money. Might even have potential as an anti-ship weapon given it's 150km range.

https://youtu.be/PdM0Ci13eJAhttps://you ... dM0Ci13eJA

how come a ground launched SDB have around 50% more range than an SDB dropped from 40-50K ft though ?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 05:14
by Dragon029
I imagine with the size of the MLRS launcher they're simply able to boost it with a considerable amount of rocket fuel. Looking at the launch footage, I wouldn't be surprised if the bomb / rocket actually goes supersonic in it's climb.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 09:38
by kukemaim
tincansailor wrote:
kukemaim wrote:
tincansailor wrote:

Wouldn't the Excalibur have to land a direct hit to destroy a tank? Is Excalibur capable for such precision on a moving target?


At the current time yes. Another poster said the army is working on an Excalibur Round that can track mobile targets. However even dumb rounds can do the job. In WWII a battery of 6 guns could lay down 18 shells in what was called a "Time on Target" fire mission. That is all the shells arrive at the same time. They could take out a moving German truck convoy. Using a spotter plane they could get a speed estimate and lay down a fire pattern in the predicted location of the convoy when the shells would arrive.


Now we have Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) which is performed by a single modern artilery unit. About 4-6 rounds per unit i believe. Basically the same thing, yes?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 10:07
by charlielima223
Here is some old school footage of the TOW in Vietnam...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=252&v=UpzXVvemY0s

We've come a long way

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 12:16
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:Then there's this thing, a SDB-1 mated to a MLRS rocket to provide field artillery a powerful capability not previously avaliable vs. fixed targets. An obvious evolution would see a SDB-2 variant for use against mobile targets. Repurposing proven systems is relatively low-risk in terms of time and money. Might even have potential as an anti-ship weapon given it's 150km range.

https://youtu.be/PdM0Ci13eJAhttps://you ... dM0Ci13eJA


You don't have to wait for SDB2 to do that as Boeing is already planning on LaserSDB for the MLRS.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 12:24
by popcorn
Yep, if you have someone/something to lase the target.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 12:58
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:Yep, if you have someone/something to lase the target.


That should not be a problem with the rapid proliferation of small drones and small hand-held designators.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 17:08
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yep, if you have someone/something to lase the target.


That should not be a problem with the rapid proliferation of small drones and small hand-held designators.

Yep again but obviously the tri-mode seeker was intended for situations when lasingn is unavailable or compromised.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 17:47
by SpudmanWP
There is a new Excalibur coming down the pipeline

The Discriminating Projectile (Increment III) to search, detect,
and selectively engage individual vehicles by distinguishing
specific target characteristics

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 20:41
by Gums
Salute!

While we are discussing boats and tanks and maybe the Deathstar, we might roll the clock back to late 1980's when the MMW seeker for the Maverick and other missiles was under devlopment.

Before we discuss, PLZ think about a big ship/boat and its defensive systems versus what we would expect on a a tank. How many depend upon radar? How many can be effective without radar inputs? What defensive armament system will be employed? Then think about a tank or other armored vehicle. Which target is an "emitter"?

When we tried to come up with a tactic for attacking maritime targets way back in the early 70's, we depended upon Weasels and their huge STD ARM missiles and then AGM-45's to shut down the enema radar/fire control systesms. HARM was on the way, but not yet there for us to use. Nevertheless, the idea was to have a slew of Weasels launching ARM's as they had done in 'nam, and we would come in from all directions with a lotta jamming from the A-6 and EB-66 assets and our own pods.

All the ship's fancy fire control stuff postulated would be garbage if a dozen HARM doofers and those big STD ARM things were inbound. I saw it work over Hanoi and the Vee were down to visual aiming and TLBR fire control.

+++++++

I worked on the pilot interface for the AGM-65 with a MMW seeker and lock-on-after-launch concept in the late 1980's. Contractor was Hercules and later ATK and other folks. Presented the concept to the client in maybe 1988 or 1989, but before "The Storm". Got hired by DCC in 1990 to use a simular display concept for employing the Harpoon on the Viper. For Maverick, we basically set the range window and fired the thing boresight within a realistic launch zone. Used basic launchers and electrical interface, but video and such were modified. Launcher had no clue what we were doing except to provide volts and the fire signal. Smarts were in the missile. The seeker was cosmic, and captive carry missions showed us how good it was. Sucker locked on like magic and 100 pounds of HE was gonna hit a tank.

See: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11242260.html

First mission was a hangfire due to an interlock problem. A buddy from another consulting contractor and I got hired and then showed the contractor how to simplify the design and still maintain safety. So the one in the article was the second "live fire" attempt, and the sucker worked. Gotta love it.

I would also look back at the PPI effort for JDAM. USAF was impressed by the results of the OCD ( operational concept demo) , and as usual, wanted an other bite of the steak. If the thing could hit within 10 meters in any weather or whatever from 20 miles away, then what about a terminal seeker? So we got hired to evaluate terminmal seekers and such. Gotta love it. So I got to see the latest and greatest stuff from several big boys after signing all the non-disclosure crapola.

We were only tasked to develop the crew interface and displays regardless of which seeker was selected by USAF. The EO seeker had best accuracy, then the LIDAR and then the MMW as we saw with the Maverick. The biggie was that only the MMW seeker worked in bad weather, just like the Longbow system for the Apache. Unlike the initial MMW Maverick, the GPS could tell the seeker when to turn on and also look off boresight a bit while providing range, azimuth and elevation. Sheesh, how easy are ya gonna make it?

Summary:

For the boats, a coordinated attack with ARM's and jamming should allow strikers to get within launch range of several missiles, and maybe get close enuf to toss bomb dumb bombs.

For tanks, I would take the MMW seeker Maverick with some GPS inputs to help acquisition. Next would be drone or other laser designation. For spray and pray, think the SFW and all those skeets. None of those would be acceptable for a close encounter than a laser designator from a human closse to the action.

Gums dreams.......

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:26
by tincansailor
[quote="Gums"]Salute!

While we are discussing boats and tanks and maybe the Deathstar, we might roll the clock back to late 1980's when the MMW seeker for the Maverick and other missiles was under devlopment.

Before we discuss, PLZ think about a big ship/boat and its defensive systems versus what we would expect on a a tank. How many depend upon radar? How many can be effective without radar inputs? What defensive armament system will be employed? Then think about a tank or other armored vehicle. Which target is an "emitter"?

When we tried to come up with a tactic for attacking maritime targets way back in the early 70's, we depended upon Weasels and their huge STD ARM missiles and then AGM-45's to shut down the enema radar/fire control systesms. HARM was on the way, but not yet there for us to use. Nevertheless, the idea was to have a slew of Weasels launching ARM's as they had done in 'nam, and we would come in from all directions with a lotta jamming from the A-6 and EB-66 assets and our own pods.

All the ship's fancy fire control stuff postulated would be garbage if a dozen HARM doofers and those big STD ARM things were inbound. I saw it work over Hanoi and the Vee were down to visual aiming and TLBR fire control.

Fascinating stuff gums. For many years I've thought that ARMs were the biggest danger to ships, leaving them crippled and wide open to any follow up attack you care to launch. Being that unlike most land targets the radar, SAM system, and ultimate target are all rolled in one, if you take out one you get the other two for free. Being hit by an ARM might just be enough to sink, or at least burn out all but the largest ships today.

As late as the 80s our estimation of Russian Damage Control wasn't very high so it might not take much to knock out even one of their destroyers. I understand during the Vietnam War the USAF accidently hit an Australian Destroyer with an ARM. The ship was out of action for hours.

I hope our AGEIS Ships can spoof Russian & Chinese ARMs, or failing that our last ditch defense systems can take them out. At Mach 4 even if our Phalanx system can hit it it would be too late. Could the ESSM missile do the job? Of course our best bet would be to destroy any ARM carrying fighters before they get in range. We have lot of capacity to do that.

As for taking out a tank with a Maverick Missile how easily do you think the warhead could be detonated by a tank firing an intercepting projectile? How big would the interceptor have to be? How about the SDB?

By the way gums I asked in an earlier post what kind of ECCM did enemy fighters use over N Vietnam? How effective were they? How effective was Iraqi ECCM on their fighters in DS? Anyone care to speculate how many radar guided missiles since Vietnam have missed because of ECCM?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:37
by spazsinbad
Three missiles hit our destroyer HMAS Hobart killing two sailors and wounding several others - the ship was not at action stations having assessed the approaching aircraft as friendly - which they were - until they weren't.

http://www.gunplot.net/vietnam/hobartvietnam.html

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2015, 08:00
by tincansailor
popcorn wrote:Yep, if you have someone/something to lase the target.


Sure you have. The ground troops who called for the fire mission can lase the target.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2015, 09:03
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote:Three missiles hit our destroyer HMAS Hobart killing two sailors and wounding several others - the ship was not at action stations having assessed the approaching aircraft as friendly - which they were - until they weren't.

http://www.gunplot.net/vietnam/hobartvietnam.html


So called friendly fire is the worst. It just makes you sick thinking about it. Somehow it seems even worse when you hit an ally. What do you say? Sorry friends we made a mistake. Interesting site. I got the whole story wrong. I thought Hobart was hit with an ARM, not Sparrows. I thought they might have fired an ARM because they thought they were being tracked by a hostile radar. I never know that other ships were hit and some sunk. What a cluster F###. Did they ever figure out who did all this shooting?

Please take this the way it's intended spazinbad, it's meant in respect. I hope there is no "remember the Hobart" group in Australia like the "Liberty Lobby" in America. Those people have used the tragic attack on USS Liberty has a club to beat Israel over the head for decades. I've meet some of them in person, (Not actual crew members) and their "Hatred" for Israel is palpable. I just don't know if the attack on Liberty is the cause of the hatred or just the excuse. I can tell you this I've never meet an American who hated Australians. I have meet lots of women who love them. Take care.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2015, 09:26
by spazsinbad
I'm no longer familiar with the story (not me Chief) however I guess by now Google will have lots of info in various places. I do not think there is ill-will from my recollection - we understand mistakes are made. A great example of this is the USS Frank E. Evans collision with HMAS Melbourne on a night flying course in 1969. This was the first cruise with the new (four) A4Gs of VF-805 onboard. MELBOURNE had already collided with HMAS Voyager some five years earlier under similar circumstances - aircraft carrier on a steady signalled night flying course with the escort destroyer maneuvering in error to be cut in two by the carrier.

The Evans/Melbourne Reunion group have regular get togethers that are convivial to say the least. My VF-805 CO later (1971-72) was FDO that night in 1969 - he was awarded a bravery citation for jumping from the flight deck onto EVANS to help look for and rescue survivors that night. Our Wessex 31B ASW Helos worked nonstop looking for survivors that night and next morning. The aftermath was not good. Overall more than 150 sailors in total were killed in these two unnecessary collisions. The USN ships were briefed about collisions with our carrier before the exercise by the CO MELBOURNE - to no avail.
The Melbourne-Evans Incident (released 1975)
Uploaded on Jun 30, 2011 Naval History and Heritage Command

"In the darkness of early morning on June 3, 1969, destroyer USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) collided with the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne (R21) in a joint exercise in the South China Sea, resulting in the loss of 74 lives. This 1975 Navy training film recreates the events surrounding the collision. Names of the officers involved in the collision have been changed. Source: Naval History and Heritage Command, Photographic Section, UMO-40."


Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2015, 15:51
by old_rn
I remember when I was on HMS Devonshire in the Far East in 1972 we were in exercises involving HMAS Melbourne. The captain issued a standing order that he was to be called to the bridge if we were within 20nm of her!

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2015, 16:21
by spazsinbad
Despite controversies at the time of each collision (too tedious to go into at moment however gargle is your friend) MELBOURNE was not at fault (for non pussers the carrier is on a course for recovering aircraft and will not deviate from it despite other ships maneuvering). It was great that the at the time maligned then exonerated CAPT Stevenson MELBOURNE CO was issued a much belated public 'apology' by the Federal Government/RAN Dec 2012.
Official apology for HMAS Melbourne captain
06 Dec 2012 Peter Lloyd

"The Federal Government has apologised to the captain of HMAS Melbourne for being made the scapegoat for one of Australia's most devastating naval disasters.

In June 1969, 74 American navy personnel died when the USS Frank E Evans collided with the Australian aircraft carrier during exercises off the coast of the Philippines.

Although blameless, the commander of HMAS Melbourne, John Stevenson, was made the scapegoat for the accident.

Mr Stevenson, 91, has just received a letter from the Defence Minister finally acknowledging he was "not treated fairly" by the government of the day and the Australian Navy.

The aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne was one of 40 ships from six nations taking part in Exercise Sea Spirit in the South China Sea.

In the early hours of June 3, 1969, the USS Frank E Evans was ordered to change position, but her crew made a catastrophic error and ran straight under the bow of HMAS Melbourne....

...STEVENSON (at this time 91 years old): ""I think (the Navy) were worried that if the Americans were found to be totally at fault that they wouldn't ever want to work with the Australian Navy again.

"I think the Australian Navy felt that under pressure from the Americans that some fault had to be attributed to us to make it much better from their point of view."..."

"CHRIS UHLMANN, [ABC RADIO] PRESENTER: It's more than 40 years since one of Australia's worst naval disasters, the collision between HMAS Melbourne and an American warship, the USS Frank E. Evans. The training accident killed 74 American sailors. It also ruined the career of a promising Australian Navy captain. John Stevenson was court martialled, even though it was accepted widely then that as captain of HMAS Melbourne he'd done nothing wrong. Now the Australian Government has admitted for the first time that he was treated unfairly. Hayden Cooper reports....

...At 91, John Stevenson still easily recalls the terrifying moment before the collision when the crew of the American ship turned in the wrong direction.

JOHN STEVENSON: He [EVANS Bridge Crew] panicked and put his wheel on the wrong way and spun back under our bows and we cut him in half. And the bow part went on her port side and turned over and sank almost immediately, taking most of the people with her.

HAYDEN COOPER: [ABC Radio Interviewer] Whose fault was it?
JOHN STEVENSON: It was the incredible incompetence of the Evans' crew, particularly the captain. He knew when we were gonna fly aircraft, he knew we'd be calling him in when he did and he stayed in his bed and the people that he had on the bridge were completely untrained.

HAYDEN COOPER: It was just the beginning of a saga that destroyed the Australian's career. John Stevenson was court martialled, and although he was acquitted, he was demoted and then resigned. To this day he views himself as a scapegoat.
JOHN STEVENSON: That was done to satisfy the Americans. They didn't really want to be found to blame totally. They had to get some blame pushed onto us. And our people accepted that.

HAYDEN COOPER: Australia also accepted an American as chairman of the joint inquiry that followed, the same man who had ultimate command of the USS Frank E. Evans. The inquiry found both ships at fault and said Captain Stevenson should have taken evasive action sooner. Ever since, the captain and his family have been fighting to set the record straight...."

Sound + Transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-06/n ... in/4413734


Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-06/g ... ne/4413638

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2015, 18:06
by spazsinbad
HMAS Hobart in Vietnam Part 1 of 2
19 Aug 2009 Harry Daish

"In late February 1967 I was a senior Lieutenant of 16 years service, having just returned from three years exchange service with the Royal Navy, where I qualified as a Direction Officer. This course trained me as an Air Intercept Officer and Operations Room specialist. On completion of the course I served for two years in the RN aircraft carriers HMS Centaur and Victorious, where my primary duty was the control of jet fighters. .... Joins HOBART...

...Second deployment [with HMAS Hobart]
So March 1968 saw me back in Vietnamese waters in Hobart for our second deployment, this time under the command of CAPT K.W. Shands RAN....

...Ops Room Evaluator
I went on watch as the Ops Room Evaluator (basically the senior watchkeeper in charge of the ship in the captain’s absence) at 2200. I felt uneasy about the situation, operating so close to the coast in a “hot” air defence situation. I woke the captain and advised him that my reading of the Rules of Engagement prohibited us from firing on a suspicious aircraft until it had actually attacked us.

Due to the scant warning we would receive of an attacker coming off the shore, the opportunity of identifying friend or foe and actually engaging it would be nigh impossible. I helped the captain draft a signal to the Commander Seventh Fleet (COM7THFLT) suggesting a change to the rules of engagement. This was despatched but failed to elicit a response.

My other major concern was the air defence situation in the area. The previous watch had tried to establish an Air Defence Net with the USS Boston, whose group was operating some 50 miles to the south of us, but had little success, as did my watch.

We were aware that a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) was overflying us but we had no communications with them. During the watch the CAP gradually drifted to the south of us.

Missile hit
Just after 0300 on 17 June [1968] the TU [Task Unit] was positioned between Tiger Island and the North Vietnamese coast, heading northwest in line ahead with Hobart in the rear. At about 0315 a fast moving aircraft was detected leaving the coast in the vicinity of the DMZ heading seawards before turning towards the TU. My assessment was that it was a CAP aircraft. It approached our starboard quarter and then all hell broke loose as it hit us with a missile. I immediately brought the ship to action stations and turned the TU to seawards away from the threat direction. No attempt was made to contact the aircraft because the very last thing I expected the attacker to be was a US aircraft.

Initially we were hit starboard side amidships by a single missile. The missile was a Sparrow AIM-7 (air-to-air missile). This weapon, manufactured by Raytheon in the US, was a semi-active homer. Put simply, the attacking aircraft “painted” the target with its radar and the missile flew down the reflected beam.

The warhead was a proximity type with a small explosive encased by a compressed ring of high tensile steel. On detonation, the ring was designed to fly outwards cutting through soft targets such as aircraft fuselages. The missile was not designed for anti-ship use but I did hear that the weapon had been evaluated for such use a year or so before our unfortunate introduction to it, but rejected as unsuitable.

As the warhead exploded, bits of high-tensile steel sliced through the upper deck and aluminium superstructure. Moderate damage was inflicted to compartments below deck. The worst damage (from an operational point of view) was to electrical cable runs in the superstructure. This deprived power to our gun and missile fire control systems and damaged the gyro stabilisation of our radars.


Effectiveness impaired
In short, we could still steam at high speed but our effectiveness as a fighting ship was minimal. The body of the missile ended up inside the forward funnel casing. Most regrettably, parts of this missile killed one sailor, a lookout at the after end of the bridge superstructure, and wounded two other junior sailors.

About three minutes after the first attack, Hobart was attacked again and this time was hit by another two Sparrow missiles. The first missile entered the transom, just below the main deck. The warhead did not detonate but caused some damage in two compartments before piercing the after bulkhead of the After Seamen’s Messdeck and coming to rest beside a sailor’s bunk. (Fortunately, he was at his action station by that time.)

A second missile homed in amidships onto the after end of the Ikara ASW missile magazine, detonating and causing severe damage to the magazine and adjacent compartments. Parts of the missile pierced the upper deck and killed a Chief Petty Officer and wounded four other junior sailors as they were running to action stations.

Fired in local control
During this attack one of our gun crews spotted a swept-wing fighter aircraft and fired five rounds of five-inch shells while in local control.

About 15 minutes after this attack our consort [USS] Edson was also attacked but suffered no damage. At some stage during this brouhaha the heavy cruiser USS Boston was also attacked, and suffered damage but no fatalities.

When the action had subsided, our TU joined up with Boston to form a screen around USS Enterprise CVAN 65. She used her Medivac helicopter to transport our wounded to Da Nang. We were relieved as TU Commander by USS Edson and steamed to Subic Bay for repairs, which took about six weeks to complete.

On our way back to Subic Bay we cleaned up the ship as much as possible and in the process found parts of the missiles that positively identified them as American. I recall that we were able to trace our missiles back to the 432nd Tactical Fighter Wing which operated out of the Royal Thai AFB in Udorn, Thailand. Boston claimed to trace her missile debris back to the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing, out of Da Nang AFB. Both units operated F4 Phantoms.

Command and control problems
There is no doubt that USAF aircraft were responsible for at least most of the attacks that occurred on the night of 16/17 June, although one lengthy piece of internet correspondence tries to implicate UFOs.

There may be some doubt in the case of the sinking of PCF 19, which “disappeared in a flash of light” after reportedly engaging enemy helicopters the previous night. One main question to be solved is whether PCF 19 was sunk before or after Boston’s alert that Tiger Island was being re-supplied by enemy helicopters. Whichever way it went, somebody in the military hierarchy gave the green light to USAF Phantom Squadrons to hunt for enemy helicopters in the vicinity of the DMZ and Tiger Island without providing adequate procedures to ensure the safety of allied naval units.

USAF Phantom
Unfortunately, while I have had one joy-ride in an F-4, I have not seen its radar picture in a night time operational setting. Like many others, I find it inconceivable that Radar Intercept Officers (RIOs) in a Phantom could confuse a 3000 ton destroyer, a 35000 ton destroyer and a 17,000 ton heavy cruiser with helicopters on their radar screens. But that is just what they did. They didn’t fire AAMs to cripple surface vessels, they fired them thinking that they were firing at air targets. The nights around 16/17 June were pitch black with no moon, which may have prevented visual identification, but surely they must have seen something on the sea surface.

Ed. note by Fred Lane:
[SBLT Sea Fury Pilot HMAS Sydney 805 Squadron during Korean War - later Sea Venom F.A.W. Mk.53 LCDR CO 805 Squadron HMAS Melbourne - later 1st A4G Skyhawk CO VF-805 aboard MELBOURNE during EVANS collision 1969]
"After initial contact in those days, fighter aircraft radars were deliberately adjusted to give the smallest practical echo size, thus tuning out nearly all target size information. There are frequent night conditions when even the best-trained aircrew see no difference whatsoever between sky and sea. Some ship lights stand out but Australian ships tend to take their blackout very seriously and show little or no aircrew-useful light. Ship anti-collision lights, if switched on, look just like a helicopter’s. By contrast, nearly every tiny boat in an Asian fishing fleet shows much more light, including at least one very big bright white floodlight. A Sparrow attack requires the pilot to concentrate on cockpit instruments and Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) directions. RIOs typically give 100 per cent attention to their radar. When attacking a target below 1000 feet at night, pilots dare not spare more than a fleeting glance outside. At typical Sparrow firing ranges, say between 10 and 20 miles, a blacked out RAN warship is invisible during a deliberate search at night, never mind a fleeting glance."


The essential problem here was that the action took place in an area where two separate operational areas joined and three different arms of the military were involved (four if you include the US Marine Corps).

No local area tri-service commander
There was no single overall command and control and even our small efforts to bring some order to the air defence situation failed. Why weren’t we informed that USAF Phantoms were operating aggressively in our area? Why weren’t they informed of our presence? I shall never know.

As the Evaluator in Hobart, with an intimate knowledge of the events surrounding the attack on us, I was required to scribble a few observations on a scrap of paper the next morning, and that was the end of it. I believe that some sort of inquiry was held in Da Nang subsequently, but we didn’t participate and I never saw any findings. The incident was essentially covered up, which has permitted nonsensical stories to be posted on the web concerning UFOs and ghosts in the “Green Ghost” (Hobart’s Vietnam nickname). And still we wonder!..."

Source: http://www.navalofficer.com.au/hobart1/

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2016, 00:23
by popcorn
Only because Armata-related... enjoy :)
https://youtu.be/55fBmn2y2-s

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2016, 02:12
by KamenRiderBlade
popcorn wrote:Only because Armata-related... enjoy :)
https://youtu.be/55fBmn2y2-s

Talk about stupid ideas, firing a tank shell without a barrel.

Right....

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2016, 07:51
by charlielima223
popcorn wrote:Only because Armata-related... enjoy :)
https://youtu.be/55fBmn2y2-s


Image

I'm not knocking on you buddy... just the video.

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2016, 17:24
by botsing
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
popcorn wrote:Only because Armata-related... enjoy :)
https://youtu.be/55fBmn2y2-s

Talk about stupid ideas, firing a tank shell without a barrel.

Right....

Indeed, the effect will be mostly shell casings flying backwards with the slug dropping in the front of the vehicle. About the same that happens when you throw bullets into a campfire.

Also they somehow assume that with visual cloaking you are invisible. Oh, and tanks always roll in without any combined forces, right?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2016, 04:42
by KamenRiderBlade
botsing wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
popcorn wrote:Only because Armata-related... enjoy :)
https://youtu.be/55fBmn2y2-s

Talk about stupid ideas, firing a tank shell without a barrel.

Right....

Indeed, the effect will be mostly shell casings flying backwards with the slug dropping in the front of the vehicle. About the same that happens when you throw bullets into a campfire.

Also they somehow assume that with visual cloaking you are invisible. Oh, and tanks always roll in without any combined forces, right?

Is it me, or was half the video made with cartoon physics?

Re: F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2016, 07:47
by hurricaneditka
I saw a similar style video a while back, some semi-truck-trailer-sized drones leveled a military base. It too was goofy.