Military Review

The future of American tanks

136
American main combat modernization project tanks M1A2 SEP v.3 has been successfully brought to the stage of repair and updating of existing equipment. A production line was deployed at one of General Dynamics Land Systems' enterprises, the task of which is to restore incoming equipment with parallel replacement of a number of systems. Thanks to this, existing tanks will be able to get new opportunities. At the same time, the Pentagon continues to draw up plans for the distant future and is considering possible options for the development of armored forces.


It should be recalled that now in service with the United States there are a significant number of M1 Abrams tanks of various modifications, some of which had previously undergone certain upgrades. For example, in recent years, around 1600 combat vehicles have been upgraded by the project M1A2 SEP v.2, which involved the replacement of a number of existing systems and the installation of some new units. One or another development of this project continues to this day: just recently, it became known about equipping tanks of the SEP v.2 version with active protection complexes.

The future of American tanks
The alleged appearance of the fighting machine FCS MGV


A further development of the existing modernization projects was the new M1A2 SEP v.3. Work on it started a few years ago, and in the fall of 2015, the first experienced new-type tank was introduced. In the future, engineers and military experienced an experienced technique, after which it was decided to launch a serial update machines. A few weeks ago, the developer of the SEP v.3 project spoke about his recent successes.

In mid-September, Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for General Dynamics Land Systems, said that work was already underway to modernize the first batch of tanks sent by the army. By the end of the month it was planned to complete the update of the first serial tank. In the very near future, five more armored vehicles were to leave the assembly shop. According to E. Givens, in the future, about 1500 tanks will have to be upgraded.

The M1A2 SEP v.3 retrofit project (System Enhancement Package version 3 - “System Enhancement Package, 3 Version”) involves the installation of an auxiliary power unit inside the armored hull, the replacement of fire control equipment, communications and control, provides for a major change in ammunition, and also offers remote use managed combat module. Nevertheless, the relatively old M1A2 with a very limited modernization potential remains at the heart of the updated tank.

The main tanks of the M1 Abrams family, available in the United States Army, are relatively older. The oldest cars remaining in the parts were built in the mid-eighties. The equipment is regularly sent for repairs, and in addition, it is being upgraded in accordance with new projects. According to the calculations of the command, all this allows you to keep on arms even relatively old tanks. Currently, the task of updating the fleet of vehicles is supposed to be solved using the project SEP v.3. In the foreseeable future, it will be replaced by the next program of modernization SEP v.4.

The Pentagon has already ordered the development of a new project for the modernization of existing tanks. Required documentation should be prepared for the beginning of the next decade. In 2021, it is planned to begin testing the first experimental tanks M1A2 SEP v.4. Serial reorganization of equipment starts in two years. In 2025, the upgraded armored vehicles will go into service. The cost and timing of the work, as well as the number of equipment that will be sent to repair, have not yet been clarified.

According to reports, at present the military department and General Dynamics Land Systems are busy shaping the appearance of the tank version of SEP v.4 and have not yet had time to determine the range of necessary improvements. However, some of the most common requirements for such tanks are already known. According to the results of the next update, the Abrams will receive enhanced protection. Combat qualities will be enhanced by creating new ammunition and improving the fire control system. Significant processing will undergo a set of communications.

Modernization projects of existing tanks M1A2 Abrams will allow keeping this equipment in service at least during the twenties. In the future, however, the existing armored vehicles will need to be replaced. Updating existing tanks can not last forever and, at least, is limited by the resource of technology. As a result, the Pentagon already now has to begin working out the general provisions of the future project.

It should be recalled that the task of creating a new tank to replace the existing M1 Abrams is not the first time. In the past, worked out different options for promising armored vehicles, but all these projects did not lead to the desired results. Not so long ago started new work in this direction. According to the available information, while the specialists of the US armed forces are working on the general provisions of the future project.

Specialists of the organization Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), responsible for the creation of new models of land vehicles, are now engaged in research in the field of armored vehicles and are trying to form the optimal look of the future tank. At the moment, general requirements are being formed and different concepts are being considered that allow solving the set tasks.

It is reported that a promising tank will have to enter service no earlier than the end of the twenties, and therefore will be a replacement for the updated M1A2 SEP v.4. As a result, the appearance of such a technique is being worked out taking into account the features of this version of the Abrams. At the same time, the task of specialists is to find ways to improve the basic characteristics while maintaining certain parameters within reasonable limits.

Thus, one of the main problems of the later modifications of the M1A2 is an excessive combat mass, which seriously worsens tactical and strategic mobility. For this reason, the future tank must have special requirements in terms of size and weight. A direct consequence of this will be the use of modern and promising materials: despite the reduction in the mass of the structure, such a tank should be protected, at least, not worse than the machine M1A2 SEP v.4.

The characteristic features of the armed conflicts of recent years make the issue of tank protection particularly relevant. The Pentagon plans to strengthen the protection of the future tank at all angles. Attention will be paid to the sides, aft and bottom. According to recent reports, the construction of a completely new armored hull will use the latest materials, including composites. Due to this, the protection of the future tank, showing the characteristics at the level of armor "Abrams", will be approximately 20% easier.

Own booking will be added by auxiliary systems. On top of the composite armor, you can install blocks of dynamic protection. The possibility of using active protection complexes is also not excluded. The US military has already managed to test such equipment, and, in general, were satisfied.

Curious theses about the armament complex were announced. At one time, the first modification of the M1 Abrams tank was equipped with an 105-mm cannon, which was later replaced with a larger-caliber gun. In the new project, similar approaches should be used, allowing, if necessary, to strengthen the "main caliber" of the tank. In this case, initially the tank of the future, most likely, will be equipped with an 120 mm caliber gun, although it is not possible to install another system in the future.

One of the main methods of improving the combat qualities will be new ammunition of increased power. In the current project M1A2 SEP v.3, new projectiles of various types were introduced, allowing to reduce the range of shots without loss of combat effectiveness. In the future, these products can be developed with appropriate consequences for the general characteristics of the technology.


Experienced tank M1A2 SEP v.3


An obvious way to improve performance is to use more advanced fire control systems that can receive data from on-board communications. Thus, the peculiarities of the development of the onboard complex of radio-electronic means will be directly connected with the course of creating advanced troop control systems.

At the same time, the tank will have to carry a significant number of means of observation and target detection. According to TARDEC, the main role in this area will remain with optical-electronic devices, with which the crew can search for targets at any time of the day. Also, the possibility of using radio-technical and radar detection means is not yet ruled out.

The armament complex will necessarily include additional weaponplaced on a remotely controlled combat module. At the moment, different variants of the module and its equipment are being considered. To attack "soft" targets, it is proposed to use both rifle-caliber machine guns and small-caliber guns.

In recent armed conflicts, American forces had to face a number of serious problems. In particular, the existing equipment was not ready for the existing challenges, and it had to be refined. In this case, in a promising project, it is proposed to provide for free volumes within the protected space that could be used for the installation of units of a particular purpose. There it will be possible to place additional equipment, additional ammunition, etc.

For known reasons, the issue of creating armored vehicles with the maximum degree of automation is currently being actively worked out. It is obvious that certain tasks related to controlling the combat vehicle or data processing in the new project will be assigned to automatic systems. At the same time, American experts cannot yet speak with certainty about the possibility of using an uninhabited fighting compartment served only by mechanisms.

In accordance with current plans, a promising main tank, designed to first supplement and then replace the existing Abrams, will appear no earlier than the second half of the twenties. Such equipment will come into service only in the thirties. This suggests that during the first few years, the production tanks of the new model will be operated in parallel with the updated M1A2 SEP v.4 and SEP v.3, which by that time will approach the maximum service life.

However, so far there are certain grounds for doubts about the possibility of timely and full implementation of existing plans. The fact is that the United States is not the first time planning to create a replacement for tanks M1 Abrams. Since the end of the nineties, a GCV project was being developed that proposed the construction of a combat armored vehicle of up to 30 tonnes armed with an 120-mm gun. Subsequently, the GCV developments were transferred to a similar MGV project, which was developed before 2009. Due to the lack of real success, the second project was closed.

In connection with the temporary rejection of the development of new projects of armored vehicles, the Pentagon was forced to focus on the creation of projects to upgrade existing combat vehicles. In the period from 2017 to 2025, it is supposed to carry out repairs and modernization of tanks under the SEP v.4 project, after which similar works will start as part of a newer project. And only after that the long-awaited resumption of the construction of completely new tanks is possible.

The recent modernization projects of the main tanks M1A2 Abrams, created under the System Enhancement Package, have significantly improved the fighting qualities of existing equipment that no longer fully meets modern requirements. However, existing tanks have limited capacity, and such upgrades cannot continue indefinitely. Understanding this, the Pentagon is making plans to develop an entirely new combat vehicle. To date, TARDEC experts have begun to work out the general concept of the future tank, and have already been able to draw the first conclusions. However, until the advent of a real experienced armored car is far away.


On the materials of the sites:
https://globalsecurity.org/
https://scout.com/
http://armyrecognition.com/
http://army-guide.com/
https://defensenews.com/
Author:
Photos used:
Globalsecurity.org, National Interest.org
136 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 13 October 2017 15: 15 New
    +6
    Let them upgrade ... Our developers of ATGMs do not slurp soup too.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 13 October 2017 15: 31 New
      19
      Our ATGM developers, unfortunately, lag behind the western ones, we still do not have 3rd generation ATGMs, and its absence is replaced by propaganda of its uselessness, they say the 2nd generation is better, and as soon as Hermes is brought to mind, the 3rd generation will gain a lot of advantages over the second.
      And with the installation of KAZ on Abrams, our ATGMs will become completely useless, as Merkav’s experience in military vehicles showed.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 13 October 2017 15: 45 New
        +4
        RPG-30 break through the active defense.
        1. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 13 October 2017 15: 47 New
          +8
          this is only in theory, there is no evidence in practice, besides this is an RPG, the effective range of 100 meters, in modern conditions, the infantry is not allowed to such a distance to the tank
          1. kirgiz58
            kirgiz58 13 October 2017 20: 36 New
            +7
            Quote: _Jack_
            in modern conditions, the infantry is not allowed to such a distance to the tank

            In fact, the infantry is not allowed, it is the infantry itself that is waiting for this distance and burns.
          2. bandabas
            bandabas 13 October 2017 20: 42 New
            +3
            Well yes. Judging by your statement, the sapper blades are a complete anachronism. Like, injected robots, a happy man. This is where progress has come.
          3. missuris
            missuris 13 October 2017 22: 04 New
            0
            In the city and in the gorge, they still let it in. Just RPG-30 is incomparably small in comparison with RPG-7, like BM with active protection. According to the 3rd generation ATGM I agree with you.
          4. silver_roman
            silver_roman 20 October 2017 10: 38 New
            +2
            say this to the Abrams of the Saudis, who the Hussites burned like matches!
            on paper there is always all kraisov, but in practice, RPG-7, which the dinosaurs still fought, broke the forehead of Challenger -2 in the presence of super-duper-mega Chopham armor. here the main thing is more pathos in the name.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 13 October 2017 15: 56 New
        +8
        Quote: _Jack_
        And with the installation of KAZ on Abrams our ATGMs will become completely useless

        Both 9P157 Chrysanthemum-S and 9P162 Kornet-T are “doublet”, that is, they are able to overcome KAZ with high probability

        Quote: _Jack_
        we still do not have a 3rd generation ATGM

        The third-generation ATGMs are overwhelmingly low-speed. Therefore, they are unable to overcome KAZ
        1. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 00 New
          +4
          Now the serial KAZs are only on mercans, they will also be put on Abrams, so they have a decent funnel on top of which the dead zone is not shot, and 3rd-generation ATGMs attack the tank just from above, the rocket falls almost vertically onto the tank.
          Although they can upgrade, let's see what they put on the Abrams.
          By the way, Afghanit (Kaz Armata) does not protect the upper hemisphere, i.e. useless against 3rd generation ptrk.
          In Chrysanthemum and Cornet, doubleness for overcoming blocks of dynamic protection will not save from KAZ
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 October 2017 16: 07 New
            +4
            Quote: _Jack_
            Now the serial KAZs are only on mercans, they will also be put on Abrams, so they have a decent funnel on top of which the dead zone is not shot, and 3rd-generation ATGMs attack the tank just from above, the rocket falls almost vertically onto the tank.


            New Israeli know-how? Read...
            But the trouble is, it’s unlikely that such a “feint” can be carried out on a moving tank, besides, modern KOEPs do not have this “dead zone”, and are quite capable of combating such ammunition.
            1. _Jack_
              _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 11 New
              +3
              Not only Israeli, the Javelins are attacking the same from above. And they get along the moving tank perfectly, do not invent.
              KOEP with GOS ATGM 3rd generation can not do anything, there are radar and optical and infrared channels in the GOS. Call me commercially available KOEP capable of confusing modern GOS.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 October 2017 16: 17 New
                +2
                Quote: _Jack_
                KOEP with GOS ATGM 3rd generation can not do anything, there are optical and infrared channels in the GOS.

                Question: Can they attack a target that they don’t see? Generally. Because in front of the GOS, the barrier is in the form of an aerosol cloud that is not transparent in the visible, IR and X-ray ranges.
                1. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 31 New
                  +6
                  To do this, the tank should have radars detecting the ATGM missile, after which aerosols should be fired, not anyhow but "not transparent in the visible, infrared and radar ranges." Do our troops have such defense systems on tanks? On what? On the T-72B3? Dreaming is not harmful.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 13 October 2017 16: 39 New
                    +4
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    for this, radars must be on the tank

                    For this purpose, almost all modern COEP include UV sensors. Which migrated to tanks from aviation and find a missile long before it is detected by the KAZ radar
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    Do our troops have such defense systems on tanks?

                    Do we need third-generation ATGMs to shoot our own tanks?
                    1. _Jack_
                      _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 51 New
                      +7
                      Our troops have neither KOEP capable of combating 3rd generation ATGMs or 3rd generation ATGMs.
                      But NATO countries have already massively switched to Spikes and Javelins. In the event of a collision, our T-72B3 as matches will burn up in the first minutes of the battle, we have no KAZ and are not planned. And the USA has already announced a competition for the equipment of Abrams kaz, and then our outdated 2nd generation ATGMs will not be able to do anything to Abrams.
                      Here is such a sad alignment.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 October 2017 16: 56 New
                        +5
                        Quote: _Jack_
                        In our troops there is no KOEP capable of combating 3rd generation ATGMs

                        And they have. So why do we need missiles that are obviously not able to overcome the protection of the BTT?
                        Quote: _Jack_
                        and then our outdated 2nd generation ATGMs will not be able to do anything to Abrams.

                        “Our obsolete 2nd generation ATGMs” are capable of overcoming KAZ.
                        By "doublet" launch of two missiles on the same target. KAZ simply does not have time to react to the second.
                      2. Gransasso
                        Gransasso 13 October 2017 16: 56 New
                        +1
                        Quote: _Jack_
                        Our troops have neither KOEP capable of combating 3rd generation ATGMs or 3rd generation ATGMs.
                        But NATO countries have already massively switched to Spikes and Javelins. In the event of a collision, our T-72B3 as matches will burn up in the first minutes of the battle, we have no KAZ and are not planned. And the USA has already announced a competition for the equipment of Abrams kaz, and then our outdated 2nd generation ATGMs will not be able to do anything to Abrams.
                        Here is such a sad alignment.



                        Already selected Israeli KAZ Trophy
                      3. Doliva63
                        Doliva63 14 October 2017 19: 11 New
                        +4
                        "In the event of a collision, our T-72B3 will burn like matches in the first minutes of the battle ..."
                      4. Doliva63
                        Doliva63 14 October 2017 19: 29 New
                        +6
                        "In the event of a collision, our T-72B3 will burn like matches in the first minutes of the battle ..."
                        In the event of a collision in the first minutes of the battle, after aviation and artillery, and under the cover of helicopters, and along with infantry - who will burn there? Read the source - BUSV. If in conditions of focal defense, read the source, if in the city it is his own.
                        A comrade in Chechnya raised a battalion 3 times with a machine gun until he caught a bullet. Why, I ask? And closed! So nothing will save.
                      5. Soho
                        Soho 17 October 2017 05: 43 New
                        0
                        your sad alignment from a poor understanding of the topic.
              2. Vadim Kurbatov
                Vadim Kurbatov 14 October 2017 19: 24 New
                +1
                Javelins current are not able to shoot at night and beyond 2.5 kilometers
          2. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 13 October 2017 16: 35 New
            0
            Quote: _Jack_
            By the way, Afghanit (Kaz Armata) does not protect the upper hemisphere, i.e. useless against 3rd generation ptrk.

            in your opinion is it so difficult to install a pair of checkers vertically? Or maybe you think it's impossible to install a couple of additional radars to block the top?
            1. _Jack_
              _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 37 New
              +4
              to consider something is one thing, but the reality is completely different, unfortunately Afghanit does not shoot up, and there isn’t him yet, and when it will be massively unknown
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 October 2017 16: 51 New
                +6
                Quote: _Jack_
                to consider something is one thing, and reality is another

                "Afghanit" was not originally intended to protect against defeat from above. Missiles and SPBE cluster munitions.
                For this was the theme of OCD "Kashin." Providing installation on the tank:
                - launch systems (type 902B) grenades with aerosol radio-absorbing clouds and smoke compositions,
                - ammunition launch systems for directors of electromagnetic interference affecting the guidance channels of the GPS of the WTO ammunition,
                - a set of passive means to reduce visibility ("Cape", maskset with radar absorbing properties, heat shields).

                1. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 55 New
                  +5
                  Firstly, aerosol curtains are still not a kaz; it will be difficult to say what its effectiveness will be. And secondly, what to discuss if Afghanistan is not in the army and will not be massively for a very long time. Let them put in a couple of thousand armats, then another thing. And so, NATO has a 3rd generation ATGM shaft and we don’t have Armat, only defective T-72B3s, which burn like matches from the 2nd generation ATGMs.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 13 October 2017 17: 10 New
                    +8
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    Firstly, aerosol curtains are still not kaz

                    You checkers, or go?
                    Now the world trend is the mutual integration of KAZ and KOEP, leading to the creation of an active protection system that can use both hard-kill and soft-kill methods of eliminating danger. Everything else is a source of information for the MSA of the tank. A kind of "superhardkill"
                    1. _Jack_
                      _Jack_ 13 October 2017 17: 34 New
                      +3
                      When both KAZ and KOEP cover together this is one thing, and when KOEP instead of KAZ (like the upper hemisphere in Afghanistan) is completely different.
                      Yes and no, in our troops on tanks there is neither KAZ nor KOEP, and for a long time there will be no sense to discuss any.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 13 October 2017 18: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: _Jack_
                        When both KAZ and KOEP cover together this is one thing, and when KOEP instead of KAZ (like the upper hemisphere in Afghanistan) is completely different.

                        Once again, do you check or go? Do you need to use a few Afganit ammunition for targets that are easy to disable or trick the FEC?
                  2. opus
                    opus 15 October 2017 19: 45 New
                    +5
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    Firstly, aerosol curtains are still not kaz,

                    This is KAZ
                    The system includes missile launch detection systems installed on some aircraft and on ground equipment. The system warns the crew about the launch in his direction, the armament automatically unfolds, and an automatic curtain-laying system is triggered - an aerosol cloud is fired in front of the projectile, allowing it to close the target in the infrared and optical range.
                    Application KAZ American helicopter XX-60X (HH-60H).

                    Quote: _Jack_
                    Let them put in a couple of thousand armats, then another thing.

                    go broke
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    And so the NATO ATGM 3rd generation shaft a

                    Well, not so "shaft"

                    UK: some
                    Ireland: some
                    Lithuania: 40 launchers, also installed on HMMWV \ Norway: 100 launchers
                    USA: 7100 PUs and 3160 simulators for 2015
                    France: 76 PU
                    Czech Republic: 3 PU
                    Estonia: 80 P

                    Quote: _Jack_
                    T-72B3, which from the 2nd generation of ATGMs are burning like matches.

                    The tanks will burn.
                    And Merkava is the same
          3. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 13 October 2017 22: 29 New
            +3
            The funnel and dead zone depend on the layout of the radar and "shooters".
            It is a flexible system that adapts to any protection task. The number of elements is not hard. Another rooftop radar and another shooter solve the problem.
            1. _Jack_
              _Jack_ 14 October 2017 22: 44 New
              0
              And how do you like the idea of ​​a double-shot anti-tank missile, when one missile goes after the second along one beam to overcome the KAZ? Like, the first KAZ destroyed, and after it the second KAZ did not have time for reaction, because a few meters to the tank. The manufacturer Kornetov declares in the description such a regime for overcoming KAZ. True, apart from this statement, no information at all.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 15 October 2017 10: 00 New
                0
                "Type the first KAZ destroyed, and behind it the second and the KAZ does not have time for reaction, because several meters are left to the tank" ///

                The radar will have time to detect and comp to calculate each of the missiles that go each
                after another. But the shooters will have to be doubled. Then it will not be necessary
                recharge.
                Although technically perform such shots from ATGM "doublet" one at a time
                the beam is very difficult. So, "we will have a look" wink .
                You can always say: "but we can simultaneously launch 5 missiles in one tank - and Khan to him" wassat .
                No one removed the passive armor. And in 2006 she held 1-2 rockets out of 3 (statistically) when shot on board.
                1. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ 15 October 2017 11: 19 New
                  +1
                  The radar will have time to detect and comp to calculate each of the missiles that go each

                  It is believed that even the radar may not detect. When missiles go one after another, the radar does not see the second after the first because it is in the centimeter range, and diffraction is especially pronounced in cases where the size of the obstacles is less than the wavelength or comparable to it. ATGM missiles have dimensions 2 orders of magnitude greater than the radar wavelength, which means that the first missile will have a “shadow” in the radar range where the second missile will hide.
                  And at the moment of operation of the KAZ, the radar fades for a split second due to the multitude of its own damaging elements. I read the estimates that the operation of the KAZ blinds her for 0,2-0,4 seconds, during which time the cornet rocket flies 60-100 meters (the rocket speed is 300-310 m / s).
                  But this is all theory, there is no information about practical results, maybe just a chatter, maybe not.
            2. ronnon
              ronnon 15 October 2017 09: 55 New
              0
              Yeah smile and increased the caliber, increased the power of the projectile as well as its weight, but they don’t want to put the automatic loading system stubbornly winked so it turns out they push it there even bigger than a black man? laughing or specifically steroid loaders will be trained in training hi
          4. Yarhann
            Yarhann 15 October 2017 22: 38 New
            +1
            ATGM with GOS type Jewelirna is unable to overcome the aerosol interference field that poses the same Afghanite - GOS just loses its target. The task of the combat complex to protect the tank along the ultraviolet trail from the rocket engine’s operation is to give the command to the airborne jamming system to shoot them in the right direction, which 100% guarantees loss of target and miss. And it is precisely this drawback that the anti-tank missiles without the GOS are deprived of, let alone the grenade launchers.
            For a guaranteed defeat of a tank with KAZ, doublet shooting of missiles with a minimum period of time of the order of a fraction of seconds is enough - it is guaranteed that the missile will go through the screen and hit the tank - this is also not new.
            There are a lot of options for how to break through a modern tank, but the trouble with missile weapons is precisely the low speed of flight and the possibility of setting interference to the GOS or triggering an AZ on approaching ammunition. A more or less guaranteed defeat is given only by a sub-caliber BS or OFS with remote detonation above the tank turret.
            You just need to understand one thing: missiles with GOS, though it is always easy to interfere with the thermal trace of an ultraviolet radar radar seeker and others, is the main thing to determine the moment of launch and direction of a rocket, and then the probability of repelling an attack is very high and ATGM without a GOS can be opposed to KAZ.
            Although there are options to make it like on anti-ship missiles - that is, to use a powerful radar seeker radar to turn on when approaching for an attack - that is, at a distance of several hundred meters - before that, the rocket just shoots towards the target. Then you can put a slide maneuver into the on-board rocket computer — to attack the target in the tower from above and also bypass KAZ — but here again the problem is that it is possible to interfere — and if we use a radar seeker it will be two-band, then it will be expensive - and so the price on similar ammunition from the seeker is very expensive.
            I think that you should not focus on such ammunition - the future lies with hypersonic tank destruction weapons - that is, stupid crowbars flying in one fell swoop - guaranteed to overcome KAZ and all the other crap and piercing armor - now only tanks possess these weapons - only tank guns can use crowbars.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 15 October 2017 22: 52 New
              0
              Quote: Yarhann
              A less guaranteed defeat is given only by a sub-caliber BS or OFS with remote detonation

              also warheads of the "shock core" type - they work beyond the influence of short-range KAZ.
              Yes, they have twice or three times less armor penetration, but this is enough when attacking from the upper hemisphere.
              1. Yarhann
                Yarhann 16 October 2017 15: 47 New
                +1
                Well, speaking of the OFS with remote detonation, I meant something like a strike nucleus. That is, just a crowbar breaks through any tank to any place, no defense will do anything except the armor thickness (real) and the second option is to put it not in the tank, but in the zone of weakly protected places with remote detonation - the same blasting of a land mine over MTO will damage the tank and most likely will lead to a fire of the car and loss of equipment.
          5. Conserp
            Conserp 15 February 2018 16: 29 New
            0
            Quote: _Jack_
            Afghanite (kaz almaty) does not protect the upper hemisphere, i.e. useless against 3rd generation ptrk.


            Nonsense. Soft-kill - it’s for sure, hard-kill - is assumed (counter-charges - controlled by themselves and with controlled detonation).

            Quote: _Jack_
            In Chrysanthemum and Cornet, doubleness for overcoming blocks of dynamic protection will not save from KAZ


            And do not confuse duplicity with tandem.
        2. Operator
          Operator 13 October 2017 16: 40 New
          +1
          Tandem ATGMs can overcome only dynamic protection (DZ) in the form of overhead blocks with explosives that throw steel plates in the immediate vicinity of the armor.

          None of the existing and developed ATGMs can overcome active defense in the form of counter-munitions launched towards ATGMs at a distance from 10 to 20 meters.

          KAZ "Arena", "Trophy" and "Afghanit" rule.
          1. _Jack_
            _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 44 New
            +3
            About what I’m talking about, only of those listed in the troops is there only Trophy. And we have only talk so far.
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 October 2017 17: 11 New
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            None of the existing and developed ATGMs can overcome active defense in the form of counter-ammunition

            And if there are two missiles?
            1. Operator
              Operator 13 October 2017 21: 34 New
              0
              So there will be a couple of counter-munitions - that's just business.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 October 2017 21: 42 New
                0
                Quote: Operator
                So there will be a couple of counter-munitions - that's just business.

                It will not have time to recharge. How to turn the tower
                1. Operator
                  Operator 13 October 2017 21: 55 New
                  +1
                  Only Trophy will not be able to recharge, at the Arena and Afganit each counter-ammunition is located in its own launcher.
                  At the same time, Arena-M can launch counter-munitions in all azimuths without turning the turret.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 13 October 2017 22: 47 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Operator
                    Only Trophy will not be able to recharge, at the Arena and Afganit each counter-ammunition is located in its own launcher.

                    We are talking about the “Trophy”.
                    Well, “Arena”, apparently, will not be produced.
          3. Graz
            Graz 13 October 2017 21: 30 New
            +2
            Above we already wrote a doublet shot of the cornet one by one there there is a start difference, whether second or half second calmly overcome trophies, you are behind the times
          4. Yarhann
            Yarhann 15 October 2017 22: 41 New
            +1
            Spark ATGMs guarantee overcoming KAZ it is as old as light - any system has a reaction time to repeated operation - the difference in the time of launching missiles is simply set less and that’s all - any kaz goes off with a bang - the first missile, let's say a dummy gets off, the second hits the target.
          5. Yarhann
            Yarhann 17 October 2017 23: 36 New
            +1
            from Dz and Az grenade launchers overcomes RPG 30 Hook, from ATGM systems based on ATGM Cornet (ATGM systems are installed on vehicles or vehicles).
            The meaning of the work is simple, that for Hook that for a cornet - a consecutive shot of two missiles - only in RPGs it is uncontrolled grenades following one after another, and in a complex based on Cornet it is two missiles following in one laser beam also one after another.
            This ensures overcoming the AZ well, and the tandem ammunition guarantees overcoming the RS.
            Nothing new. All this has been developed for a long time and is now also being sold for export.
        3. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 13 October 2017 17: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          Both 9P157 Chrysanthemum-S and 9P162 Kornet-T are “doublet”, that is, they are able to overcome KAZ with high probability

          "Advertising does not lie! Advertising does not tell the whole truth!" the radar detects both shots, therefore it can launch two KAZ checkers to hit both targets. If the ATGM developers can reduce the flight distance of the missiles in such a way that the detonation process of the first one interferes with the launch of the second checker, it will be possible to introduce the detonation function at the checkers at different distances so that they do not interfere with each other. Therefore doublet shots are not a panacea.
          Quote: Spade
          The third-generation ATGMs are overwhelmingly low-speed. Therefore, they are unable to overcome KAZ

          KAZ generally doesn’t give a damn about the ATGM speed because the KAZ’s task is not to prevent the ATGM getting into the tank, but to preliminarily destroy or fire the cumulative ATGM warhead at a distance from the tank.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 October 2017 17: 26 New
            +1
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            "Advertising does not lie! Advertising does not tell the whole truth!" the radar detects both shots,

            Radar does not detect a shot
            The radar detects a missile, and in the immediate vicinity of the BTT.
            For its power is very limited.
            Firstly, in order to prevent the tank from being detected by electronic intelligence
            Secondly, so that this radar, when detected, is not suppressed

            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            KAZ generally do not care about ATGM speed

            Well, well ... I'll give you a titanium plate from body armor, can you beat her a bullet? That's right, this is unlikely. You will have the same problem as KAZ - reaction time.
            1. _Jack_
              _Jack_ 13 October 2017 17: 31 New
              0
              Afganit’s AFAR is powerful on the contrary, they didn’t give a damn about disguise, they say up to 100km. the tank sees
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 13 October 2017 17: 55 New
                0
                Quote: _Jack_
                Afganit’s AFAR is powerful on the contrary, they didn’t give a damn about disguise, they say up to 100km. the tank sees

                This is one of the operating modes designed to detect UAVs, turntables and tanks when the AFAR operation does not lead to the detection and destruction of the tank. For example, in a forest or greenhouse, or for example in the desert, but only at the top when the enemy does not have AWACS aircraft. Yes, and as far as I remember there is not 100km but much less.
                1. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ 13 October 2017 18: 03 New
                  0
                  A well-known expert in armored vehicles, Colonel Mikhail Tymoshenko, who has access to the development, said the ability of the Afganit radar to simultaneously track up to forty ground "dynamic" and twenty-five "aerodynamic" air targets at distances of up to 100 km, which many media outlets subsequently reprinted and this caused a great discussion of specialists. However, the expert did not indicate for the purpose with which EPR such a range of work is possible.
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 October 2017 18: 08 New
                +2
                Quote: _Jack_
                Afghan AFAR, on the contrary, is powerful

                Are you sure?
                Do you accidentally confuse him with the target reconnaissance radar from the OMS?
                1. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ 13 October 2017 18: 41 New
                  0
                  Earlier, manufacturers of radars for KAZ before the release of "Afganit" even struggled with the detection range of targets, reducing as much as possible the power and range of the radar. In KAZ "Arena" a mode of reducing the power of pulses was built up as the munition approached. But all such measures, on the whole, turned out to be ineffective against the hypersensitive antennas of electronic reconnaissance systems and, in particular, AWACS aircraft, which automatically calculated the positions of tanks at a great distance immediately after turning on KAZ radars even with a weak signal. In the T-14 concept, it was decided not to fight this, but to make the flaw a dignity, that is, to strengthen the radar power, making it even more noticeable, but turning it into a reconnaissance target in the “network-centric war” scenario, to issue targets for destruction in the first place other combat vehicles
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 13 October 2017 19: 13 New
                    0
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    Earlier, manufacturers of radars for KAZ before the release of "Afganit" even struggled with the detection range of targets, reducing as much as possible the power and range of the radar.

                    Write a lot of what you can.
                    Question: if this radar is part of the “Afganit” and not the tank’s SLA, then why is it not on the TB-TMP 15? But the radar sensor (aka "near radar") is on the T-14 and T-15.
                    The fact that this radar may transmit data for an active protection system does not make it an element of this system.
                    As the opposite, the fact that the active protection system can transmit data on the ATGM position obtained from UV sensors to the tank’s FCS does not make these sensors elements of the FCS.
                    1. KCA
                      KCA 15 October 2017 10: 28 New
                      0
                      The number of specialists in HE admitted to the most important state secrets is always surprising, and even the appearance of the “Almaty” is unknown, then it’s plywood or tin mockups on the front pokatushki, but no, they already know all the characteristics thoroughly
                  2. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 14 October 2017 00: 24 New
                    0
                    "In the T-14 concept, they decided not to fight this, but to make the disadvantage a dignity, that is, to strengthen the power of the radar station, making it even more noticeable" - For airplanes with anti-radar missiles - 100 kilometers from the tank and there greetings to the tank - will fly to smithereens.
            2. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 13 October 2017 17: 46 New
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              KAZ generally do not care about ATGM speed

              Well, well ... I'll give you a titanium plate from body armor, can you beat her a bullet? That's right, this is unlikely. You will have the same problem as KAZ - reaction time.

              Your comparison is not appropriate, because when a warhead (cumulative funnel) of an ATGM is destroyed, its entry into the tank will not cause serious damage (since the tank is guaranteed not to be destroyed). If you take your analogy, then the bullet is not ATGM, but BOPS.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 October 2017 18: 09 New
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                Your comparison is not appropriate

                Totally appropriate. Especially for the Israeli KAZ, requiring accurate guidance on the attacking ammunition.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 13 October 2017 19: 22 New
                  0
                  I agree, for her this is appropriate, but this does not mean that it is appropriate for all types of KAZ.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 13 October 2017 19: 40 New
                    +2
                    The fact is that the types of KAZ for which it does not matter like the Leningrad "Rain", which the Ukrainians give out as their own development called "Barrier", can only be protected by a single tank.
                    In the sense that there’s nothing to catch the infantry, it will definitely die. BMP-BTR "will do" heavy damage, and even from neighboring tanks all "mounted" as eraser erased. Because the high-speed high-density field of heavy fragments is not khukh-mukhra.
                    In short, this is KAZ for a tank advancing alone. Therefore, it is not worth considering.
                2. Operator
                  Operator 13 October 2017 21: 39 New
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  requiring precise guidance on the attacking ammunition

                  All existing KAZ are aimed exactly at the calculated point of the meeting with the ATGM, another thing is that the fragmentation warhead of the counter-ammunition makes it possible to level the aiming error of several meters.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 13 October 2017 21: 47 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Operator
                    All existing KAZ are induced

                    It doesn’t matter whether they are induced or not (like “Rain”, aka “Barrier”)
                    Any of the existing KAZ has a reaction time. And the more complex the guidance, the longer this reaction time
      3. shinobi
        shinobi 13 October 2017 16: 16 New
        +1
        Lighter than a colleague, lighter. Praised merkavs burned beautifully from the first generation, it’s just not customary to talk about it in the West. And most of their successes are explained by insufficient training, and sometimes even by open assurance of our end users.
        1. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 18 New
          +4
          Well, if you understand the issue in detail, you will understand that they burned from the anti-tank systems before the KAZ installation, I do not argue here. But after installing a single confirmed case of Merkava’s defeat with KAZ, I don’t know. After installing KAZ, losses are only from mines and landmines.
          1. bnm.99
            bnm.99 13 October 2017 16: 35 New
            +1
            KAZ on Merkava appeared after the war with Hezbollah in 2006 and over the years, Jews have not encountered a serious enemy on land. So do not worry, and a bungle appeared on Merkava with KAZ. As some did not twitch, but in the end, the impenetrable Abrams burned well in Iraq and Yemen, and the much-praised Leopard-2 metal own tower in Syria is no worse than supposedly cardboard Soviet cars.
            1. _Jack_
              _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 40 New
              +4
              Well, you mixed everything in a heap.
              Are there confirmed cases of Merkava's defeat with KAZ from ATRA? But the failed ATGM attacks have since been decently confirmed and the video is there.
              And the KAZ Abrams and Leopards are not yet equipped and, yes, are amazed by our 2nd generation ATGMs. Who argues with this?
              But the Abrams have already gathered to put KAZ.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 13 October 2017 22: 35 New
                0
                85 Abrams of the American brigade in Poland will receive the Trophy in the near future.
                Even before the official completion of Trophy trials in the USA.
      4. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 14 October 2017 11: 44 New
        +2
        Why only our anti-tank systems? All will become useless, and operations with armored vehicles are already associated with very large losses (This is even without army aircraft with anti-tank systems). Moreover, these gigantic losses are inflicted by complexes of the 2nd generation - TOU / Bassoon / Cornet ...
        In PTRS, you can probably introduce jammers for radars and shoot a doublet ... 2 KORNET missiles will still be cheaper than Spike and Javelin.
        1. max702
          max702 15 October 2017 10: 06 New
          +1
          That's right .. KAZ, not for the global war, our people understood this and did not massively introduce the “Arena”, because it was expensive and ineffective with such a batch, but the threats in local conflicts were not taken seriously by our defense ministries and did not want to spend money on this .. Israel and the United States have a different picture; they perfectly understand that there will be no global conflict because in his case it won’t reach the tanks, but local operations are a dime a dozen and there the KAZ will be in great demand, that’s where the tanks fight not according to the charter, that is, without infantry cover other means, but it shouldn’t be like this, but it is, it confirms reality .. Consequently, KAZ will be put on BT, naturally developing as experience accumulates ...
        2. Yarhann
          Yarhann 15 October 2017 22: 51 New
          +3
          absolutely rightly think that the firing of anti-tank guards is guaranteed to overcome the KAZ - the only question is the correct setting of the launch time - it should be less than the time of the repeated reaction of the kaz to the attack. That is, in fact, it is even possible to combine this system in one large missile - for example, the warhead detaches and breaks through the kaz, activating its shock part, which goes at a short distance, passes the KAZ which has already worked out but is still not brought into combat mode. But I think this size will be more likely helicopter-based or on board armored vehicles rather than portable. For portable, it is much easier to do a simple doublet shooting.
      5. Uryukc
        Uryukc 25 October 2017 11: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: _Jack_
        KAZ on Abrams our ATGMs will become completely useless as Merkav’s experience in BV has shown.

        A hundred times they talked about this on the cornet for armored vehicles, a system for overcoming AZ and horseradish against it. And by talking about the third generation, as much as possible, what kind of complex is not complete, give them a javelin. It’s easier to protect oneself from missiles with GOS than from missiles corrected by operators or by an automatic machine because it’s enough to fool \ hide from it, and in the case of correction it is necessary to shoot down a missile. It seems that they put IR suppression on SEP like our curtain, so the cornet is not a hindrance. Generations were introduced by amers to tell everyone about the exclusivity of their products, however, our rockets are NOT WORSE or even BETTER.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 25 October 2017 11: 29 New
          0
          To complete the picture, they lack a system for hitting targets from the upper hemisphere ... As with the latest versions of TOU ...
          1. Uryukc
            Uryukc 25 October 2017 11: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Zaurbek
            Like the latest versions of TOU ...

            If Cornet cope, why not increase the cost of production. But TOU, they don’t export them and upgrade them.
            Such modernization is too serious, ours will present a new complex in this case.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 25 October 2017 12: 59 New
              0
              Both ATGMs are 152mm and perfectly penetrate all old tanks ... but new ones are bad. So they come from above ...
      6. Maz
        Maz 23 February 2018 22: 21 New
        0
        They are only mercenaries in the Middle East and can apply their experience. Imagine a merkava in the woods or in small forests or a fight in the city among the ruins, houses, dense buildings. The sense there from her is zero. And pay attention TROPHIES in advertising always show in the open. Never in the city.
  2. shinobi
    shinobi 13 October 2017 16: 20 New
    +2
    In general, the mattresses have a general crisis in the industrial complex. For whatever they take, it either doesn’t work out or doesn’t correspond to the Wishlist.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 13 October 2017 16: 23 New
      12
      Yes, especially in our media everything looks like that. And we have a "red army of all the stronger." In reality, we have a big lag in modern and high-precision weapons; there is almost nothing in the troops. This, unfortunately, is the result of 20 years of collapse of the army and the military-industrial complex.
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 13 October 2017 17: 04 New
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      In general, the mattresses have a general crisis in the industrial complex. For whatever they take, it either doesn’t work out or doesn’t correspond to the Wishlist.

      we are not better. although not worse than theirs.
      1. Curious
        Curious 13 October 2017 17: 12 New
        +2
        In order not to worry about this issue, it is best to watch the TV channel "Star".
  3. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 13 October 2017 17: 02 New
    +1
    Lopatov,
    “Our obsolete 2nd generation ATGMs” are capable of overcoming KAZ.
    By "doublet" launch of two missiles on the same target. KAZ simply does not have time to react to the second.

    Do not smack nonsense, it hurts.
    Well, what kind of our ATGM shoots a doublet to overcome KAZ? Bassoon, Metis, Competition, Cornet?
    There is a tandem ammunition, but this is to overcome the dyne. protection and not KAZ.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 13 October 2017 17: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: _Jack_
      Do not smack nonsense, it hurts.
      Well, what our ATGM shoots a doublet to overcome KAZ

      I pointed out. Chrysanthemum-S, Cornet-T, Cornet-EM
      Quote: _Jack_
      Competition

      Actively withdrawn from the troops, perhaps only the Urals still have
      Quote: _Jack_
      Bassoon Metis

      And this generally does not care about KAZ. By the time of their use, enemy tanks will not have active defense at all. It is painfully vulnerable to fragments of 120 mm mines and 152 mm shells.
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 13 October 2017 17: 42 New
        0
        I pointed out. Chrysanthemum-S, Cornet-T, Cornet-EM

        Cornets shoot a doublet to overcome KAZ?
        Maybe you are confused with tandem ammunition to overcome the DZ? Show where the manufacturer describes this doublet shooting mode to overcome the kaz?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 13 October 2017 18: 11 New
          +3
          Quote: _Jack_
          Cornets shoot a doublet to overcome KAZ?

          Yes. It’s the same laser beam, there you can “suspend” at least a dozen missiles on one “laser path”
          1. _Jack_
            _Jack_ 13 October 2017 18: 44 New
            +2
            Is it theoretical research or a proven method of overcoming KAZ?
            Somehow I faintly imagine such a regime in practice. If the missiles go very close, then the rear one will suffer from the explosion of the first destroyed KAZ, if it is far enough that it does not hurt, the KAZ will have time to work out a second time.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 13 October 2017 19: 14 New
              0
              And do you represent the mechanics of KAZ?
              1. _Jack_
                _Jack_ 13 October 2017 19: 20 New
                0
                represent
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 October 2017 22: 01 New
                  0
                  Then what is the question?
                  Suppose this is a Cornet. Start the first rocket, after half a second second. The distance between them is at least 150 meters.
                  Trophy knocks down the first rocket. And in half a second it can neither recharge, nor turn the tower to work out with another combat element
                  1. Gransasso
                    Gransasso 13 October 2017 22: 35 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Then what is the question?
                    Suppose this is a Cornet. Start the first rocket, after half a second second. The distance between them is at least 150 meters.
                    Trophy knocks down the first rocket. And in half a second it can neither recharge, nor turn the tower to work out with another combat element



                    And the Cornets are capable of firing such "doublets" with an interval of half a second? ....
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 October 2017 23: 16 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      Are the Cornets capable of firing such "doublets" with a gap of half a second?

                      Depends on what. Wearable - no, the rest - yes
                      Rather, for the wearable, some dances with tambourines are necessary.
                      1. Gransasso
                        Gransasso 13 October 2017 23: 23 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Depends on what. Wearable - no, the rest - yes



                        Are these those based on the Tiger? ... are they generally accepted for service?
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 October 2017 23: 42 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      Are these those based on the Tiger? ... are they generally accepted for service?

                      BMP-3
                      Accepted
                      Kolomna, training
                  2. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 13 October 2017 22: 41 New
                    0
                    The answer is just as simple. A shooter who also knows how to shoot a doublet,
                    or two shooters nearby. Cosmetic alteration system.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 October 2017 23: 17 New
                      0
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      A shooter who also knows how to shoot doublet

                      At the moment, this does not exist.
                      1. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 14 October 2017 12: 52 New
                        0
                        As there are no double shots from Cornet. Trophy is a flexible system. It can be tailored to emerging threats.
                        The Americans just checked Trophy at their training ground. Tank Abrams target fired from a variety of RPGs and ATGMs - dozens of times from different angles. Trophy did not miss a single missile.
                    2. tchoni
                      tchoni 14 October 2017 09: 48 New
                      0
                      [b] [/ b] Guys, you are a little driven to run around the circle of "double" shooting. There are many other ways. So offhand:
                      1) a station like "Khibin" generating false targets.
                      2) The false targets themselves in the form of dipoles, only not fired, but fired
                      3) A banal jammer (possibly even directional), it can also act as a kind of laser path.
  4. VadimSt
    VadimSt 13 October 2017 17: 02 New
    +2
    Shrapnel .... and all these fashionable bells and whistles will go to waste!
  5. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 13 October 2017 18: 12 New
    +4
    Lopatov,
    there is neither KAZ nor KOEP in our troops on tanks, and will not be there for a long time, there is no reason to discuss it.
    First about 2 thousand. Armat was said, now about 100pcs. in the coming years they say. So we will be with the T-72B3, and there that KAZ that KOEP are abusive words.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 13 October 2017 19: 29 New
      +2
      Quote: _Jack_
      there is no KAZ in our troops on tanks

      The Americans, too. Rather, at the moment, no one at all except the Israelis. KAZ Americans have been setting their tanks for almost 12 years. Quick Kill by Raytheon was successfully tested in early 2006
      Quote: _Jack_
      no CEP

      Sure?
      Quote: _Jack_
      First about 2 thousand. Armat was said, now about 100pcs. in the coming years they say.

      The complete replacement of the M60 with the Abrams took place over 18 years. Are you sure that we are richer and can do it faster?
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 13 October 2017 20: 34 New
        0
        The Americans, too. Rather, at the moment, no one at all except the Israelis. KAZ Americans have been setting their tanks for almost 12 years. Quick Kill by Raytheon was successfully tested in early 2006

        An already resolved issue - Trophy is put on the Abrams.
        Sure?

        Well, if you are talking about the Shtora on the T-90, then the sense from it against modern GOS is zero (and the cat was crying), on the T-90B72 there is nothing or the same Shtora.
        The complete replacement of the M60 with the Abrams took place over 18 years. Are you sure that we are richer and can do it faster?

        The conversation about the fact that we are currently far behind the Americans in the matter of confronting the tank-MANPADS. They already put KAZ abrams, we have zero and no one will put them on 72 and 90, they have the 3rd generation anti-tank systems in large numbers in the army, we have the 2nd. So it turns out that in the event of a confrontation, our PTRK 2nd Pok. will be ineffective against KAZ, and our T-72B3 like matches will burn from the 2nd, not to mention the 3rd generation of MANPADS.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 13 October 2017 21: 31 New
          +3
          Quote: _Jack_
          An already resolved issue - Trophy is put on the Abrams.

          It was “resolved” in 2007. Since then, they all "put" them ... 8)))
          Quote: _Jack_
          Well, if you are talking about the Curtain on the T-90, then the sense of it against modern GOS is zero

          The main ATGM of the United States at the moment is the "Tou"
          Quote: _Jack_
          They already put KAZ abrams, we have zero

          At the moment, we have more tanks equipped with KAZ than the Americans.

          Quote: _Jack_
          they have a 3rd generation ATGM massively in the troops

          Once again, the main American ground-based ATGM is the Tou. Second-generation complex.
          Quote: _Jack_
          So it turns out that in the event of a confrontation, our PTRK 2nd Pok. will be ineffective against KAZ

          Money for fish again ... Why did you decide that?
          1. _Jack_
            _Jack_ 13 October 2017 21: 42 New
            0
            It was “resolved” in 2007. Since then, they all "put" them ... 8)))

            No, the money has already been allocated
            The main ATGM of the United States at the moment is the "Tou"

            And now the main tank of the Russian Federation is the T-72, and who wins in this confrontation? For example, you can look at the Assad tank troops. In total, according to various sources, from 700 to 1500 T-72s were delivered to Syria, and where are they all? Caught under TOW. We are now taking off the reserve and taking tanks to the sea, because we burned all 72 of it. But they did not fight with the regular army.
            Once again, the main American ground-based ATGM is the Tou. Second-generation complex.

            And what is our tank capable of withstanding? Armata, which is not.
            Money for fish again ... Why did you decide that?

            It's simple, there is real experience of using our anti-tank systems against Merkav with Trophy (which they will bet on Abrams) - not a single confirmed successful application, but there are plenty of unsuccessful ones, at least take a look at YouTube.
            And your double shots look like idle chatter. There is no specific information on this. It seems that someone blurted out, they say so you can try to overcome the KAZ, and now they repeat after him - our cornets easily overcome kaz with double shots, hurray!
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 13 October 2017 22: 34 New
              +3
              Quote: _Jack_
              No, the money has already been allocated

              Well, yes, the money is allocated. And after 3 years of such tanks there will be as many as six companies, as indicated below. Powerful.
              Quote: _Jack_
              And what is our tank capable of withstanding? Armata, which is not.

              Tou can withstand the good old emitters of the Curtain. For the optical coordinator.
              Quote: _Jack_
              It's simple, there is a real experience of using our anti-tank systems against Merkav with Trophy

              Wow. And tell me Kali Weasel, where Israeli tanks managed to collide with our self-propelled anti-tank systems?
              Quote: _Jack_
              And your double shots look like idle chatter.

              Because this fact does not suit you in principle?
              Type in google "salvo firing with two missiles at one target"
              1. _Jack_
                _Jack_ 13 October 2017 23: 04 New
                +1
                Well, yes, the money is allocated. And after 3 years of such tanks there will be as many as six companies, as indicated below. Powerful.

                You just said that it will not happen at all. Down and Out trouble started.
                Tou can withstand the good old emitters of the Curtain. For the optical coordinator.

                Which are on the T-90 and we already have 300 of them in the troops and more than the Ministry of Defense does not buy them. Again, the curtain will work only if the turret is turned toward the launch of the rocket, in practice, in most cases they do not shoot from the front with anti-tank systems, they try to hit the tank from the side because the probability of a successful attack is several times higher.
                Wow. And tell me Kali Weasel, where Israeli tanks managed to collide with our self-propelled anti-tank systems?

                Why self-propelled, and portable Cornet not ATGM or what?
                Because this fact does not suit you in principle?

                Because there is no supporting information. Where are the results of the shelling? What is the probability of overcoming KAZ? What KAZ was tested on? Nothing at all.
                Type in google "salvo firing with two missiles at one target"

                scored and what? the only link about the Cornet, the rest are completely off topic, clicking on which we see in the description -
                Moreover, the combat vehicles of the complex provide:
                high rate of fire;
                constant readiness to launch a rocket;
                salvo firing with two missiles at one target.

                Where is there even a word about overcoming KAZ?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 October 2017 23: 32 New
                  +1
                  Quote: _Jack_
                  You just said that it will not happen at all. Down and Out trouble started.

                  No, I said that it will last a very long time. Not faster than deliveries to Armat troops
                  Quote: _Jack_
                  Which are on the T-90 and we already have 300 of them in the troops and more than the Ministry of Defense does not buy them.

                  Correctly not purchasing Obsolete
                  Quote: _Jack_
                  in practice, in most cases they don’t shoot forehead from the ATGM, they try to hit the tank from the side

                  I would like to look at the process of secretly moving the “Tou” to the flank 8)))
                  Quote: _Jack_
                  Why self-propelled, and portable Cornet not ATGM or what?

                  Because technically portable “Cornet” can not carry out volley fire. Therefore, the "Merkava" never shot in one gulp.
                  Quote: _Jack_
                  Because there is no supporting information.

                  You boasted that you know how KAZ works. Take the trouble to explain how the second missile will be hit.
                  1. _Jack_
                    _Jack_ 13 October 2017 23: 46 New
                    +2
                    You boasted that you know how KAZ works. Take the trouble to explain how the second missile will be hit.

                    Our theoretical studies have little in common with the data of practical application, but they are not, even polygon ones. So I’m saying that all this is chatter, meaning that perhaps this firing mode will help overcome KAZ.
                    By the way, about the 3rd generation ATGM. Javelin in the US troops about 7 thousand pieces. Is this not enough for you? And we have a T-90 with a curtain of 300pcs. They are more than enough for all our tanks, not only on the T-90, not to mention the TOW. And Spikes are in service with 26 countries of the world. And only we are proud that our 2nd generation is better than their 3rd.
                    Because technically portable “Cornet” can not carry out volley fire. Therefore, the "Merkava" never shot in one gulp.

                    And we have a lot of self-propelled Cornets in our troops?
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 October 2017 23: 55 New
                      +1
                      Quote: _Jack_
                      Our theoretical studies have little in common with the data of practical application, but they are not, even polygon ones. So I’m saying that all this is chatter, meaning that perhaps this firing mode will help overcome KAZ.

                      Do you need theoretical research on nailing with a light bulb?
                      Quote: _Jack_
                      By the way, about the 3rd generation ATGM. Javelin in the US troops about 7 thousand pieces.

                      “theoretical research has little to do with practical data, but it’s not even polygon. So I’m saying that this is all chatter” (c), and “Javelins” are useless against our tanks
          2. Gransasso
            Gransasso 13 October 2017 21: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            It was “resolved” in 2007. Since then, they all "put" them ... 8))



            On September 28, 2017, the U.S. Army issued a contract to the General Dynamics Land Systems division of General Dynamics Corporation to equip the Israeli production of the M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams main tanks with the Trophy active defense complex of one armored brigade (Armor Brigade Combat Team).

            Now, American resources have published the first official photos of the M1A2 SEPv2 tanks, equipped for testing the KAZ Trophy (as well as the ARAT dynamic protection kit). It is reported that the ABST brigade kit of M1A2 SEPv2 tanks in this configuration, which should be modernized under the above contract, will be deployed in Europe on a permanent basis in 2020 "to deter Russian aggression." The total cost of modernization of the brigade set of tanks (the staff of 90 tanks) is estimated at $ 150 million.
            1. Gransasso
              Gransasso 13 October 2017 21: 53 New
              +2
              In an interview with Defense News and www.shephardmedia.com, US Army Colonel Glenn Dean, Stryker Armored Vehicle Program Manager, who is also responsible for installing the KAZ on other types of armored vehicles, said the US Army had already completed two phases of the KAZ Trophy test with practical shelling of Abrams tanks equipped with these KAZs. Tests were conducted in Michigan and in the Redstone arsenal in Alabama. At the first stage, the performance of the KAZ was tested, at the second stage, the system was tested "in operational-realistic conditions" on a real battlefield. As a result, "the Trophy system exceeded our expectations," Dean said, "we have no questions about the performance of the Trophy."

              According to Dean, in the trials "they tried to hit Abrams 48 about once, and failed."
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 13 October 2017 22: 24 New
                +2
                The question is what they tried to hit and how much did they try? KAZ is effective until it is tackled tightly.
                To develop a means of overcoming a matter of 1 - 1,5 years. And Hook is just the first swallow.
                1. Gransasso
                  Gransasso 13 October 2017 22: 30 New
                  +1
                  That is, the Americans are swelling hundreds of millions of dollars in the purchase of KAZ from another country and will experience them on a "relax"? ... norms logic ...
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 13 October 2017 22: 55 New
                    0
                    The actual use of the trophy by the Israeli army in a real combat situation is better than any test.
                    Once tested, it means that they specified specifically interesting nuances.
                    Or just a picnic with post-shoots for the generals organized
                    I was wondering if during the tests there were simultaneous shelling from several sides. Double and triple shots from one direction. Consecutive high-explosive / thermoboric and then cumulative munitions shelling.
                2. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ 13 October 2017 22: 32 New
                  0
                  there is demagogy, but there are real facts
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 13 October 2017 23: 35 New
                    +3
                    The real facts of the protection of the tank by the Trophy system against 9M114 missiles of the Sturm complex do not exist.
                    Does this mean that “merkava” is defenseless when applied?
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 13 October 2017 22: 44 New
              +1
              Quote: Gransasso
              brigade set of tanks

              that is, 6 tank companies of 14 tanks each. For three years.
              1. Gransasso
                Gransasso 13 October 2017 22: 49 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: Gransasso
                brigade set of tanks

                that is, 6 tank companies of 14 tanks each. For three years.



                But what ... do you have examples of armies where this is done faster? ... name ...
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 October 2017 23: 19 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Gransasso
                  But what ... do you have examples of armies where this is done faster? ... name ...

                  As far as I remember, KAZ was installed much faster in Israel.
                  1. Gransasso
                    Gransasso 13 October 2017 23: 30 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    As far as I remember, KAZ was installed much faster in Israel.




                    I thought you would give some other army as an example ...



                    All the same, the trophy was originally made on Merkava and was imprisoned for its parameters



                    Abrams is another tank ... probably in order to hang Trophy on it, it is necessary to modify the complex ... well, and also the production capabilities of an Israeli company producing them to watch ...
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 October 2017 00: 29 New
      0
      "Birdhouses" put on their tanks, Syrian production.
  6. padded jacket
    padded jacket 13 October 2017 19: 32 New
    0
    And I have a question if Israeli KAZ Trophies are so good and proven more than once in battles, as Israeli Jews say, why the US equipping its Abrams with this KAZ leaves them all in Europe where they basically aren’t needed since there’s no war here and don’t send tanks with this KAZ to Iraq or Afghanistan where just KAZ tested in battles is so necessary.
    My opinion is that apparently the Americans "suspect" that everything is not clean with Trophy and the reports of Israeli Jews are most likely a lie intended for advertising.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 October 2017 21: 39 New
      +1
      Neither in Iraq nor in Afghanistan are there Abrams tanks belonging to the American army.
      There are old Abrams in Iraq who left the armies of Iraq.
      In Saudi Arabia there are Abrams.
      Poland is the most “advanced” place where the US ground forces are serving.
      They will be equipped with Trophy in the first place.
      1. padded jacket
        padded jacket 15 October 2017 13: 02 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Neither in Iraq nor in Afghanistan are there Abrams tanks belonging to the American army.

        He invented it or who helped?
        More Tanks Arrive in Afghanistan
  7. like this
    like this 13 October 2017 19: 57 New
    0
    Lopatov,
    and crews dash calculations can it?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 13 October 2017 21: 32 New
      0
      Quote: here you go
      and calculations dash crews it can

      What can they do?
  8. VOENOBOZ
    VOENOBOZ 13 October 2017 22: 02 New
    0
    I would like to protect our T72, and at what distance should the shooter be so that his machine gun is not knocked down. Because only the shelter gives a chance to survive.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 October 2017 00: 35 New
      0
      "I want to protect our T72," from the BOPs of the new 130 mm guns and American sub-caliber shells, nothing will help him. Well, what, but ammunition in the west is able to do.
  9. Setrac
    Setrac 13 October 2017 23: 38 New
    +1
    The active defense system that is not integrated into the armor will help the tank in any way, since it will be destroyed by fragments and small arms.
  10. tank64rus
    tank64rus 14 October 2017 10: 54 New
    +1
    So far, the Americans have only wishes as far as it is clear from the article. After all, the projects of the new tank that they planned to replace Abrams were already in the early 90s. Then having spent a lot of money, the project was slowly turned off. Everyone remembers the period when everyone together buried the tanks. Glory to God and our patriots of tank troops, designers and manufacturers who managed to keep the groundwork for the future and gave the line of Armata. By the way there is a lot implemented from the concept of "tank of the future." Judging by the article, pumping out money to the "tank of the future" from amers is moving into a new stage.
  11. Forever so
    Forever so 14 October 2017 16: 18 New
    +4
    I read and immediately remembered the joke about the Georgian, who is being tried for murder, and to the question why he killed, the Georgian is responsible, For the Dream. How does the judge ask ??
    Not for fucking my wife, not for fucking my mother-in-law, but for saying - As soon as the women get bored, I will get fucked, Dreamer. Even to twenties America must survive. And there’s nobody to rob.
  12. Doliva63
    Doliva63 14 October 2017 19: 59 New
    +4
    I read the comments and realized: the future of American tanks is so-so laughing
  13. Anton Yu
    Anton Yu 15 October 2017 12: 05 New
    0
    To the account of Almaty: 40-50 cars have been produced and all of them are in the training units. Armata is a complex and it’s impossible to simply transfer the crew with the T-72 there. But there is a high probability that they, like the T-90, will not be released by more than 500 pieces.
  14. the same doctor
    the same doctor 16 October 2017 12: 05 New
    0
    did anyone really understand what the tanks would look like tomorrow?
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 16 October 2017 19: 20 New
      0
      tomorrow - most likely the same as today, plus or minus a few new technologies.
      But the day after tomorrow - most likely like this:
  15. Kent0001
    Kent0001 17 October 2017 23: 04 New
    0
    Lopatov,
    And they will burn us from the first. In principle, as always.
  16. looker-on
    looker-on 28 January 2018 23: 27 New
    0
    The oldest cars remaining in the units were built in the mid-eighties.



    This is from the article. It doesn’t bother anyone that we always write that everything is “terribly old” and always forget about their main T-72s of the same years (which are also hopelessly outfitted)
  17. Forever so
    Forever so 23 February 2018 22: 36 New
    0
    Simonov’s anti-tank rifle is taken and a good ballistic sight, the bems and eyes of the super-advanced control system are poked up., The bams and the goose are rolled out. All these Merkavs and Abrams only drive the Papuans through the deserts and then they are harnessed from the DShK. Between the rollers the engine compartment 12.7 breaks through.