Page 4 of 10

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.