Some unrelated recent military procurment storiess since I am getting bored of Ukraine

[conon394]

Maybe they should have stuck on reactive armour, to make up the difference/

I don't think their is on easy button solution. If you think about the TUSK upgrade to the M1A1 includes reactive plates, grills and DU enhancement and lots more functionality for the secondary armament and its users. Not only that at some it will also certainly add in active defense. Putting on reactive plates/cubes - whatever - helps but it does not solve everything.

[Pielstick]

My understanding is that reactive armour is only really effective in protecting against HEAT or shaped charge munitions. Not so much effective against kinetic effect like sabot. Even so I'm pretty sure there are some munitions with a double charge designed to defeat reactive armour.

[conon394]

My understanding is that reactive armour is only really effective in protecting against HEAT or shaped charge munitions. Not so much effective against kinetic effect like sabot. Even so I'm pretty sure there are some munitions with a double charge designed to defeat reactive armour.

Which of course why you also ad grills and active defense and well trained infantry and more effective secondary abilities and better armor. But you are still going to loose some tanks that's kind of the rat race.

[Aikanár]

Well trained infantry escorting MBTs is key in urban warfare, that hasn't changed since Stalingrad and probably never will change.

[Shneckie]

My understanding is that reactive armour is only really effective in protecting against HEAT or shaped charge munitions. Not so much effective against kinetic effect like sabot. Even so I'm pretty sure there are some munitions with a double charge designed to defeat reactive armour.

Yes, reactive armour is for charged munitions. The armour on the Chally 2 and Abrams is designed to protect against kinetic energy projectiles. But as others have said, reactive armour is not something you can rely on even against what it is designed for. Challenger 2 hulls have been penetrated in Iraq by RPG-7 due to the reactive armour failing. There was one such incident which resulted in the injury of the tank's driver.

[Condottiere 40K]

Perhaps the Iraqi government should have just stuck with replenishing it's T-72 stocks; they might have been able to maintain them better, and put more of them on the field.

[Aikanár]

Perhaps the Iraqi government should have just stuck with replenishing it's T-72 stocks; they might have been able to maintain them better, and put more of them on the field.

Increasing the number of un- or badly escorted MBTs will only lead to an increase of the number of destroyed MBTs regardless of model.

[Pielstick]

There was one such incident which resulted in the injury of the tank's driver.

Wasn't that an IED that detonated underneath the tank?

[Shneckie]

Wasn't that an IED that detonated underneath the tank?

No. But yeah I think there was an incident where an IED managed to damage a Chally, I remember seeing that in the news. But no there was indeed an incident where a Challenger 2 from the Queens Royal Hussars was penetrated by an RPG. My instructor who trained me on Challenger 2 was in theatre at the time.

[Vanoi]

No. But yeah I think there was an incident where an IED managed to damage a Chally, I remember seeing that in the news. But no there was indeed an incident where a Challenger 2 from the Queens Royal Hussars was penetrated by an RPG. My instructor who trained me on Challenger 2 was in theatre at the time.

It was penetrated but by an RPG-29, not an RPG-7.

[Shneckie]

RPG-29 makes sense.

[Pielstick]

Ah right. A very quick and dirty search on Wiki reveals:

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was at the time unprotected by "Dorchester" armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.^[14] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.^[15]In August 2006 in al-Amarah, a Soviet RPG-29 damaged the underside of a Challenger 2, detonating ERA in the area of the driver's cabin. The driver lost part of his foot and two more of the crew were also injured but the driver was able to reverse 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to an aid post. The incident was not made public until May 2007, in response to accusations, the MoD said "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable."^[16][17] Since then, the ERA has been replaced with a Dorchester block and the steel underbelly lined with armour as part of the 'Streetfighter' upgrade as a direct response to this incident.
Two Challenger 2s have been damaged in combat, one of which was destroyed:

• 25 March 2003 – A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations.^[18]
• 6 April 2007 – in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the tank resulting in the driver losing three of his toes and causing minor injuries to another soldier.^[19]

To help prevent incidents of this nature happening again, Challenger 2s have been upgraded with a new passive armour package, including the use of add-on armour manufactured by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems of Israel.^[20] When deployed on operations the Challenger 2 is now normally upgraded to TES (Theatre Entry Standard) which includes a number of modifications including armour and weapon system upgrades.

[Pielstick]

Well this news from last month never made it to this thread:

http://theaviationist.com/2014/06/10/t-50-catches-fire/

The latest prototype of the Sukhoi T-50 caught fire shortly after landing. It's a bit of a double whammy because it was being demonstrated for an Indian delegation at the time (these guys are basically bankrolling the T-50 development and if rumours are to be believed they are less than happy with what their Rupees have got them so far), and this was the fifth prototype and the first one to have a mission avionics fit. Official word is the damage was limited and the aircraft can be repaired. Rumour is the damage was much more expensive and the aircraft is beyond repair.

I can't help but wonder if any F-35 advocates were enjoying just a little bit of schadenfreude after the T-50 burst into flames.... only for their wonder jet to do exactly the same thing last week. Karma is an interesting thing

[Condottiere 40K]

Outside the fact that I believe the Russians are skimming off the top, the actual engines are still under development.

The Indians would have been better off making a deal with the Japanese, or the Europeans.

[Condottiere 40K]

Light, Medium and Heavy Vehicles/Armour

The number of armoured fighting vehicles are dropping in most Western arsenals, as well as the number of soldiers, so you have to protect them as far as feasibly possible, and ensure that their transports can continue to operate and fight as long as possible, which is why they'll get more protection, and therefore weight will continue to be at the heavy end.

At this point, the medium tank, assuming we're not talking about legacy Soviet T-72s, isn't viable for any reasonable production run. However, I do believe there is a place for a light tank using an IFV chassis, equipped with add on armour kits and possibly an active system that intercepts rockets and missiles at short range, which would make the tanks air transportable on medium aircraft.

In the initial phase of a military operation/intervention, troop vehicles can substitute speed and range for protection, relying on momentum to out manoeuvre the enemy forces. Problem is really the insurrection phase, where occupation forces become sitting ducks and the initiative tends to pass to the local resistance fighters. Again, I think this can be solved with armour kit add ons at the beginning, and specialized patrol vehicles later on, when it looks like the military becomes Stalingradded.

[hellheaven1987]

The thing is many IFV today is technically a light tank; but then, all armored vehicles probably would not stop latest infantry AT weapons anyway...

[Love Mountain]

I can't help but wonder if any F-35 advocates were enjoying just a little bit of schadenfreude after the T-50 burst into flames.... only for their wonder jet to do exactly the same thing last week. Karma is an interesting thing

You're still getting 5th Gen for less than a tenth of the cost.

[Condottiere 40K]

You'r getting some aspects for a cheaper cost, but I think the idea is to suck in the Indians with a low ball figure, so that when they reach a point that they can't back out due to the sunken costs, the Russians will tell them the actual cost required to develop it to the the agreed upon capabilities.

[Pielstick]

Be careful throwing around the term "5th gen". The term was invented to justify the cost of the F-22 and is now being used in the same way with the F-35. It's a pretty arbitrary term and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The T-50 like most Russian aircraft is very interesting. However, given it isn't flying with the production engines it still has a very long way to go. You'd also do well to bear in mind even at the end of the Cold War the Russian aviation industry lagged behind the West in many key areas. That same industry was on life support for over 15 years and I very much doubt they've been able to catch up with the West in such a short space of time. Scratch beneath the surface and the signs are that all is not well in the Russian aviation industry. The first Su-27M (later to become the Su-35) was delivered to the Russian AF for testing 16 years ago. Even now the Su-35 is only in very limited service with test and evaluation units. The Su-34 - another Flanker derivative that has had a painfully slow gestation - is still having problems (not combat ready and only the last two aircraft delivered have actually been built to a common standard).

Given all of this I find it extremely hard to believe they're going to have an F-22 killer in service by 2018.

I think the idea is to suck in the Indians with a low ball figure, so that when they reach a point that they can't back out due to the sunken costs, the Russians will tell them the actual cost required to develop it to the the agreed upon capabilities.

Did you realise you just described the entire JSF/F-35 programme?

[Condottiere 40K]

I learn from the best.