Russian "Cornet" against the American "General Abrams"
The Soviet and Russian GRAU never paid due attention to improving the 9M133 "Kornet" ATGM in terms of overcoming the dynamic and active defenses installed on the American tanks Abrams. In February of this year, an article appeared in the press claiming that the Kornet is capable of striking not only tanks, but also fortifications, low-speed air, surface targets. This article contains false statements related to the functioning of the "Cornet" with dynamic (DZ) and active (AZ) protection of the Abrams.
This position is misinforming the officers, cadets of schools, students, defense workers, related to the study, operation and creation of this type of weapon. Despite the universality of the "Cornet", the task of fighting tanks remains a priority. Let's try to understand this problem.
THE CORRETE'S Doubtful Efficiency
The tactical and technical assignment (TTZ) of the Grau was intended to create a rocket complex "Kornet" with a semi-automatic control system using a laser beam. The complex was designed to defeat modern and advanced tanks, equipped with dynamic protection. A rocket with a tandem cumulative warhead must pierce a package of armor plates 475 – 500 mm / 60 hail. with hinged DZ (BDZ-1).
At the same time, a tandem warhead must ensure the penetration of the M1 - P60, P30, P65 tank simulators equipped with built-in DZ (BDZ-2) units. At the same time, the rule was ignored that the efficiency of a DZ depends on its length in the plane of interaction. However, even on the ancient tanks M48А3, М60А1, "Centurion" was used mounted DZ with a length of containers 400 – 500 mm. In other words, the Graduate Survey continued its unwarranted technical policy leading to the creation of an ineffective anti-tank Cornet.
Instead of a truly existing DZ with a 400 – 500 mm container length installed on foreign tanks, as a counterpart for testing domestic ATGM, the GRAU justified the DZ with a 250 mm container length, which is an irresponsible fact. By and large, overcoming the Kornet DZ rocket in accordance with the TTZ GRAU can be considered a fabulous illusion that has nothing in common with combat reality.
The values of the probability of destruction of tanks M1А1, М1А2, presented in Table. 1, obtained as a result of mathematical simulation modeling under the direction of General Designer, Academician of RAS Arkady Shipunov. Based on the simulation, graphs of probabilities of hitting tanks М1А1, М1А2 are built depending on the armor penetration of the main charge (OZ) of tandem warheads. These data are published in the well-known metropolitan magazine for the armor penetration ability of the OZ Kornet 1300 mm.
The results table. 1 relate to two cases of the interaction of "Cornet" with DZ. The first case demonstrates results corresponding to BDZ-1, BDZ-2, which are not analogous to DZ installed on foreign tanks. The second case corresponds to the detonation conditions of all eight DZ elements (EDS) in a BDZ-2 container, 15-mm steel lid of which always interacts with the cornet body and with the cumulative OZ jet (fig.1).
The BDZ-1 container is a stamped hollow body made of sheet steel 3 mm thick, into which two flat ejectable plates are installed, each of which consists of two stamped steel plates of thickness 2 mm (length 250 mm; width 130 mm) and placed between them a layer of plastic explosive thickness 6 mm. Protection against cumulative ammunition and armor-piercing piercing shells is provided by BDZ-2 according to the design of the Steel Research Institute, the container of which consists of four sections and is covered with a common steel lid (500х260 mm) with a thickness of 15 mm. Each section fits into two EHL 4C20. When hit, ATGM detonate the ELD of one section. The EDL explosion of adjacent sections does not occur due to the presence of steel partitions between them. The EDS detonation of one section causes a “cutting out” of a 15-mm cover plate (length - 250 mm, width - 130 mm), which never interacts with the rocket body, and also does not appear in the path of the cumulative OZ jet.
For the first case, the high values of the probability of hitting the tanks M1A1, M1A2 were obtained. Note that these values correspond to the installation BDZ-1, BDZ-2 on the "Abrams" with a length of X-ray retractors 250 mm, the fragments of which never explode with the cumulative OZ jet during the LZ explosion, which is confirmed by the GRAU illusion.
And finally, Table. 1 contains the values of the probability of destruction of tanks in relation to the conditions of the second case. It should be recalled that the 9М119М Invar and 9M131 Metis-M missiles put into service have a layout scheme similar to Cornet. Experimental studies on the interaction of these missiles with a built-in DZ, having a length of 500 mm containers, have established that when they hit the upper half of the container when eight EDS are detonated, the armor penetration of the OZ tandem warhead is reduced by 70%. Spread these patterns on the "Cornet". In this case, the armor penetration capability of the Cornet tandem warhead after interaction with the 15-mm cover will decrease by 900 mm, and the armor penetration value of the non-deformed part of the cumulative jet will be 400 mm. Using the materials of the above-mentioned article by Arkady Shipunov, we will determine the probability of hitting tanks M1А1, М1А2 with the Kornet missile. In this case, the probability of injury will be 1 for М1А0,1, and 1 for М2А0,07. It can be assumed that with such effectiveness of the striking action, the Cornet should not have been adopted. But the illusionists of Grau have proven the opposite.
In captivity of the insensitive judgment
The main disadvantage of judgments about the fighting qualities of the "Kornet" is that they lack a comparison of the estimates of the combat capabilities of the "Kornet" with the development parameters of the protection of the "Abrams". The defeat of two M1 tanks during Operation Freedom to Iraq is noted, but no attention is paid to the fact that thousands of M1, M1X1, M1X2 tanks were deeply upgraded by integrating modular armor with DZ and AZ. As a result of this modernization, thousands of M1A2 SEP tanks appeared.
At the same time, the “Cornet” is one of the latest ATGMs created in accordance with the TTZ of the Soviet GRAU. As a result (tabl. 2), due to the incorrect setting of the parameters of foreign tanks of foreign tanks, a number of ineffective ATGM with tandem warheads were created.
During the state tests of the Kornet, the P30, P60, and P65 obstacles were used, which “imitate” the frontal protection of the М1 tank, and not the modern and prospective tanks. The task of the BDZ-1, BDZ-2, P30, P60, P65 simulators in the TTZ is either a gross error, or a fraud and deception. The reader can figure it out on his own (HBO No. 10, 2012).
A significant influence on the formation of the layout of the rocket "Cornet" has a dynamic protection, installed on foreign tanks. At the same time, the publication mentioned in the beginning of this article presents a very naive formulation of the functioning of a tandem warhead "Cornet". Here it is: “... the 9М133 rocket received a tandem warhead, where the first charge was destroyed by the elements of dynamic protection - iron boxes with explosives, when undermined, the anti-tank ammunition was thrown to the side or destroyed, and the second charge hits the tank directly. It is noteworthy that in order to create an effective cumulative jet of the second, it’s the main charge of the rocket, it is located in the tail section, the engine equipped with oblique nozzles is in the middle, and the control system is located in the tail section of the rocket ”.
Let's analyze this nonsense. It is argued that LZ tandem warhead destroyed elements of dynamic protection. It is well known that LZ detonates when colliding with a DZ. After that, the impact of its cumulative jet initiates the detonation of explosives in remote sensing. Therefore, the DZ cannot destroy the first charge, since at the moment of initiation of the detonation of explosives in the DZ it is simply absent. After the "destruction" of the first charge from somewhere appears anti-tank ammunition, which is thrown to the side or destroyed. Where this ammunition came from remains a mystery. And suddenly, a second charge of the tandem warhead appears, which hits the tank. Next, we will not deal with the unsuccessful description of the process of interaction between the Cornet and the DZ and its layout, but consider what happens in reality.
In order not to overload the reader with difficulties, let us provide a simplified scheme of interaction between tandem warheads “Kornet” with a built-in remote sensing device (BDZ-2), in the container of which eight EDS are placed, simultaneously detonating when subjected to a cumulative LZ jet. When the "Cornet" collides with the BDZ-2 (Fig.1), the LZ (1) is triggered to form a cumulative jet, which excites the detonation of explosives in the EHD. Formed from the detonation of explosives in EDS explosion products through 70 microseconds (ms) provide the movement of the 15-mm cover with a speed of 400 m / s. After 300 μs, after the LZ has triggered, the OZ (5) is detonated using a delay line to form a cumulative jet with 1100 – 1300 mm armor penetration. But on the way of the cumulative OZ jet all the time there will be an 15-mm cover, which will deform a part of the Cornet's body with the existing filling. The rocket engine (3) will make the greatest contribution to reducing the armor penetration of the OZ due to the channel displacement (4) for the passage of the cumulative OZ jet. After interacting with the engine channel, the cumulative OZ jet acquires a shape approximately corresponding to a sinusoid, due to which it interacts with the main body armor not in one zone (the area of a circle equal to the diameter of the cumulative jet), but more with scattering over the area of a rectangle whose length is 120 mm, width 20 mm. In other words, the mechanism for reducing armor penetration from DZ exposure is to disperse the cumulative jet over the area of the armor plate much larger than the area of the cumulative jet with no impact of the 15-mm cover on its side surface.
Thus, in the TTZ on the Kornet, the rules for functioning under the conditions of the interaction of the rocket to overcome short-distance DZ were laid down. At the same time, the main requirement was to ensure high armor penetration, which was easily achieved with a small length of E / S in the BDZ-1, BDZ-2 designs. But by now the combat conditions have become different. On tanks М1А2 appeared the system AZ with the possible installation of a tandem DZ.
LIFE CYCLE "CORNET"
"Cornet" began to arrive in the troops in 1994, and in 2007, the US Army received after a deep modernization of the 1150 МХNUMXА1 SEP tanks equipped with an active defense system (SAZ). It is known that the "Cornet" was not created in relation to the defeat of "Abrams" with SAZ and tandem remote sensing. For this reason, in 2, the life of the “Cornet” with a duration of 2007 years ended. The short life cycle of the Kornet is a consequence of mistakes made in the miscalculations of the development of foreign tank building. Today, the layout of the "Kornet" does not correspond to the real combat properties of the M13-X1 SEP tank.
High armor penetration is an essential combat property of the “Cornet”. But while the Cornet was being created, foreign tank builders created an active defense system for the M1А2 SEP tank, which allowed for achieving positive results on the Cornet’s disruption when approaching the M1А2 SEP. In other words, even before interacting with the armor protection of the tank, the "Cornet" may lose its high armor penetration.
Recently, in leading foreign countries, much attention has been paid to the creation of an SAZ. These systems must ensure defeat on the approach to the ATGM tanks and other anti-tank weapons. The former head of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate, Colonel-General Sergey Mayev, in one of his articles, reports on the installation of an active defense complex on the M1-X2 SEP tank. This complex combines: detection tools (six special sensors operating in the ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum, designed for detecting the launch of anti-tank ammunition); tracking equipment (six laser rangefinders and a millimeter-wave radar station); means of destruction; means of setting passive (smoke grenades) and active (interference transmitters to laser and infrared anti-tank guidance systems) interference.
Photo 1. The engines of the missiles "Invar" (1), "Metis-M" (2), "Kornet" (3) together with a 15-mm steel cover of the built-in remote sensing drastically reduce the armor penetration of these missiles. Author's photo
Considering the fact that the “Kornet” was created according to the TTN 1988 of the year, its design significantly lags behind modern requirements. For example, the aforementioned TTZ does not contain requirements for overcoming a tandem DZ, in which the first layer of explosives is designed to localize the effect of LZ, and the second - to reduce the armor penetration of the OZ. Abroad, much attention has been paid to tandem remote sensing.
So, back in 1992, the Polish Military Institute of Arms Technology developed a tandem DZ unit - ERAWA-2 for installation on T-72 tanks, which were produced in Poland. It should be recalled that in Russia by now a block of the tandem DZ Relikt has been created, with the help of which the fact of its overcoming by the Kornet missile has not been established. In 1993, the Americans began to carry out active work to create a “smart” SAS (Smart Armor System) body armor. In this system, a grid of sensors, a computer, and explosive units are combined. Essentially, this system is a computerized version of dynamic protection that will detect, destroy or deflect attacking ammunition using small DZ units. In relation to the "Cornet" this system will act as follows. When the Cornet passes the sensor system, the computer will determine its size and the number of DZ blocks that are located under the Cornet and must work in order to reliably destroy it.
The aforementioned article contains many laudable assessments of Cornet, based on information received from specialists of various levels. At the same time, such assessments are not based on characteristics related to combat reality. Such characteristics include survivability, noise immunity, secrecy. Vitality - the property of "Cornet" to retain the ability to perform its functions during combat damage. Unfortunately, today there are no laws defeating the "Cornet" from the SAZ fragmentation ammunition of the М1А2 SEP tank, without the knowledge of which the rocket survivability cannot be characterized. Vitality has a greater impact on the effectiveness of the "Cornet" than all other characteristics. Noise immunity - the “Cornet” property to perform combat functions in the conditions of creating interference by the enemy. Indeed, the guidance system using a laser beam is not sufficiently protected from smoke interference. Characteristics of noise immunity can be the probability of normal functioning in the conditions of a given (standard) interference of the enemy. Stealth - the property of "Cornet" not to be detected by enemy intelligence. For example, the portable complex “Kornet” can be detected by the crew of the М1А2 SEP tank when the “Cornet” uses a laser emitter that illuminates the target of the rocket. Then the destruction of the "Cornet" will follow along with the calculation. Such an operation can be carried out by a complex installed on foreign tanks.
"CORNET" IN FIGHT AGAINST SAZ AND TDZ
The increase in the protection performance of the M1А2 SEP tank by installing the SAZ and the tandem DZ (TDZ) can be assessed as follows. It is known that the probability of hitting a tank (P) is determined by the product of the probability of overcoming the SAZ “Kornet” while maintaining the normal functioning of the tandem warhead (Р1), the probability of getting the “Kornet” in the frontal part of М1А2 SEP (Р2), the probability of overcoming the tandem DZ “Kornet” (РX) RX (Р3) of the tandem DZ “Kornet” (RX) (Р1) (P2) ), the probability of penetration of the frontal fragments of protection МХNUMXА4 SEP (Р5), the probability of damage to the units inside the tank (РXNUMX).
To create a protection for the Abrams against the cumulative jet of the OZ Kornet with 1300 mm armor penetration, it is no longer possible to use multi-layered armor, which unnecessarily increases the mass of the tank. In other words, the time of layered armor has passed. For this reason, SAZ and TDZ are installed on the Abrams.
The predicted characteristics of the Kornet's combat effectiveness in connection with the installation on the Abrams SAZ and TDZ are presented in the 3 table. The first line of the table contains the probability of hitting the М1А2 SEP tank, on which there are no SAZ and TDZ. The second line corresponds to the installation on the SAZ tank, which Kornet overcomes with probability 0,3, which corresponds to the modern system with good noise immunity. “Cornet” was not created to overcome the TLV, as evidenced by the unsatisfactory value of R. The extremely unsatisfactory value of the probability of hitting the M1A2 SEP tank corresponds to the installation on the Abrams SAZ and TDZ. The smallest probability of hitting this tank is 0,02, which requires giving Cornet properties to overcome the SAZ and TDZ. But these properties are much easier to obtain for a new anti-tank missile than with the modernization of the Cornet.
The unsatisfactory state of combat effectiveness of anti-tank guided missiles with tandem warheads indicates that the anti-tank breach of the Ministry of Defense continues to expand (HBO No. 45, 2011).
In the 80 of the last century, the KBP commissioned the Drozd SAZ to enhance the protection of tanks. At the same time, KBM established the Arena SAZ. Obviously, for the creation of these SAZ KB used anti-tank guided missiles they create. The SAZ “Drozd” and “Arena” adopted for use showed positive results. But that was it. The question arises: why nothing was done to ensure that our ATGM reliably overcome the SAZ of foreign tanks? State tests (GIs) of all domestic ATGMs with tandem warheads did not contain a check of the overcoming of the SAZ of foreign tanks of the last upgrade of the M1А2 SEP. Also, for all missiles with tandem warheads, no tests of tandem remote sensing were provided.
It is appropriate to recall that the “Cornet” is often represented as super-precise. What kind of super-precision can we talk about when the SAZ of the M1-X2 SEP tank has completed the functioning of the Cornet even on approach?
The submissions indicate that the "Kornet" was created by the Soviet TTZ, which does not take into account the appearance of the M1A2 SEP tank with SAZ and TDZ. The P30, P60, P65, corresponding to the protection of the frontal fragments of the М1 tank, were provided as valid obstacles. These obstacles simulators were supposed to be equipped with the built-in remote sensing of the old structure. Thus, the Cornet proved to be ineffective for hitting the M1X2 SEP tank, the protection of which is capable of localizing the high armor penetration of the tandem warhead of this missile. It should be noted the inactivity of the Russian GRUU, which calmly refers to this situation.
Information