[Newsbot]

Title: Canadian army pulls anti-tank missiles out of storage as tensions increase with Russia | National Post
Category: Military
Posted By: shockedcanadian
Date: 2016-07-13 22:55:43
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

If this article is true a fat lot of good these 1980's antiques are gonna do our troops so we'd better come up with a new game plan.

http://www.infowars.com/russia-deploys- ... in-aleppo/

$1:

Russia has developed an active protection system used on its new generation of battle tank, the T-14. It uses a millimeter-wavelength radar to detect, track and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions. The Russians claim the technology confuses the guidance systems of TOW and other anti-tank missiles.

[shockedcanadian]

I recall reading about that. They have invested heavily in fairly new technology, which is why the U.S and a lot of the world believe this is more than just chest thumping, they may have some serious expansion objectives.

[uwish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If this article is true a fat lot of good these 1980's antiques are gonna do our troops so we'd better come up with a new game plan.

http://www.infowars.com/russia-deploys- ... in-aleppo/

$1:

Russia has developed an active protection system used on its new generation of battle tank, the T-14. It uses a millimeter-wavelength radar to detect, track and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions. The Russians claim the technology confuses the guidance systems of TOW and other anti-tank missiles.

if that is true, then a TOW missile is better than others, wire guided can't be confused by anything.

[BartSimpson]

Exactly. A wire-guided missile is not going to be confused by non-existent Russian 'vaporware' systems.

The article has some novel ideas that go "pfhhht!" on casual analysis.

$1:

The T-90s reportedly use Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor to defeat American made TOW anti-tank missiles

Reactive armor does not 'defeat' an incoming munition. It simply reduces its impact. It's also not a reusable system in that once used to minimize an impact on a particular surface of a vehicle that surface is then defenseless to a second, follow-on impact.

It's also notable that while reactive armor can minimize the impact from the TOW missiles that the Hussein regime purchased in the 1980's it's near useless against the later generation (BGM-71E to BGM-71H) missiles that employ dual warheads: one to detonate reactive armor and to cause the force to be turned inward, paving the way for the secondary warhead to penetrate the target and detonate.

And all the reactive armor in the world won't do jack shit against a BGM-71H.

If you put a Russian tank inside of ten meters of steel-reinforced concrete and fire a BGM-71H at it you'll get a hard kill every time.

Every time.

[Winnipegger]

The US bragged about a laser system to protect aircraft from missiles. The system was supposed to blind the infrared image sensor of heat-seeking missiles. Why would you be surprised that Russia developed a similar system for anti-tank missiles?

[BartSimpson]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The US bragged about a laser system to protect aircraft from missiles. The system was supposed to blind the infrared image sensor of heat-seeking missiles. Why would you be surprised that Russia developed a similar system for anti-tank missiles?

Because a TOW is not a heat seeker. It emits no radar signature. It has no wireless communications that can be interfered with by a jammer.

The guidance system for a TOW is a pair of eyeballs and unless the Russians know how to kill the guy operating the launcher then they don't have shit aside from a press release to fool or distract the uninformed.

[Freakinoldguy]

uwish uwish:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If this article is true a fat lot of good these 1980's antiques are gonna do our troops so we'd better come up with a new game plan.

http://www.infowars.com/russia-deploys- ... in-aleppo/

$1:

Russia has developed an active protection system used on its new generation of battle tank, the T-14. It uses a millimeter-wavelength radar to detect, track and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions. The Russians claim the technology confuses the guidance systems of TOW and other anti-tank missiles.

if that is true, then a TOW missile is better than others, wire guided can't be confused by anything.

I guess I should have posted the whole article because these tanks are equipped to defeat TOW missles with more than just a electronics suite.

$1:

The T-90s reportedly use Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor to defeat American made TOW anti-tank missiles.

My point is that we're using, inferior(in our case 1980's technology) equipment to defeat this latest incarnation of reactive armour.

$1:

The Kontakt-5 EDZ is the explosive reactive armour (ERA) currently installed on Russian MBTs. It is often referred to as 2nd generation, heavy-duty, or integral ERA.

Where the conventional ERAs are only capable of defeating shaped-charge jets, Kontakt-5 can also defeat APFSDS rounds. Because of Kontakt-5, long-rod penetrators can lose over 30% of their penetration potential and the protected vehicle becomes immune to them.

This type of ERA can be easily recognized as it gives the vehicle outfitted with it a distinct 'clam-shell' appearance.

It is believed that while protected by Kontakt-5 ERA, Russian MBTs cannot be penetrated across the frontal arc by the M256 guns firing M829A1 APFSDS ammo.

In addition, thanks to their heavier (15 mm hard steel) front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads, forcing the producers of tandem ATGMs to allocate more mass to precursor charge and, making an MBT more resistant to tandem HEAT warheads, as well.
It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.

This armor package is developed by NII Stali (Research Institute of Steel), the leading Russian developer of applique protection packages; Russian Federation pat. No 2064154 from 27.05.92.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html

We should be out at least buying the latest missile systems but, on the plus side our stuff is so old that we don't have the luxury of using the new TOW missiles that use a radio command link in place of the wire which means all we have to do is defeat the reactive armour.

http://www.army-technology.com/features ... s-4159253/

Now if we could just get............

[Winnipegger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The US bragged about a laser system to protect aircraft from missiles. The system was supposed to blind the infrared image sensor of heat-seeking missiles. Why would you be surprised that Russia developed a similar system for anti-tank missiles?

Because a TOW is not a heat seeker. It emits no radar signature. It has no wireless communications that can be interfered with by a jammer.

The guidance system for a TOW is a pair of eyeballs and unless the Russians know how to kill the guy operating the launcher then they don't have shit aside from a press release to fool or distract the uninformed.

FGM-148 Javelin

$1:

The FGM-148 Javelin is an American man-portable fire-and-forget anti-tank missile fielded to replace the M47 Dragon anti-tank missile in US service. It uses an automatic infrared guidance that allows the user to seek cover immediately after launch, as opposed to wired guided systems, like the Dragon, where the user has to actively guide the weapon throughout the engagement. The Javelin's HEAT warhead is capable of defeating modern tanks by attacking them from above, and is also very useful against fortifications in a direct attack flight.

Sounds like the Russian defence is designed for something like this. So you argue TOW defeats that defence. Ok.

This is an image of TOW from Wikipedia, caption says "A tripod-mounted TOW unit of the U.S. Army in Kunar Province, Afghanistan in May 2009." Doesn't look man-portable to me.

[Nuggie77]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

FGM-148 Javelin

$1:

The FGM-148 Javelin is an American man-portable fire-and-forget anti-tank missile fielded to replace the M47 Dragon anti-tank missile in US service. It uses an automatic infrared guidance that allows the user to seek cover immediately after launch, as opposed to wired guided systems, like the Dragon, where the user has to actively guide the weapon throughout the engagement. The Javelin's HEAT warhead is capable of defeating modern tanks by attacking them from above, and is also very useful against fortifications in a direct attack flight.

Sounds like the Russian defence is designed for something like this. So you argue TOW defeats that defence. Ok.

This is an image of TOW from Wikipedia, caption says "A tripod-mounted TOW unit of the U.S. Army in Kunar Province, Afghanistan in May 2009." Doesn't look man-portable to me.

No one claimed the TOW system was man portable, and if they did, they've never carried it. TOW and Javelin are two completely separate systems.

[Freakinoldguy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

FGM-148 Javelin

$1:

The FGM-148 Javelin is an American man-portable fire-and-forget anti-tank missile fielded to replace the M47 Dragon anti-tank missile in US service. It uses an automatic infrared guidance that allows the user to seek cover immediately after launch, as opposed to wired guided systems, like the Dragon, where the user has to actively guide the weapon throughout the engagement. The Javelin's HEAT warhead is capable of defeating modern tanks by attacking them from above, and is also very useful against fortifications in a direct attack flight.

Sounds like the Russian defence is designed for something like this. So you argue TOW defeats that defence. Ok.

This is an image of TOW from Wikipedia, caption says "A tripod-mounted TOW unit of the U.S. Army in Kunar Province, Afghanistan in May 2009." Doesn't look man-portable to me.

Are you speaking to me?

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Because a TOW is not a heat seeker. It emits no radar signature. It has no wireless communications that can be interfered with by a jammer.

The guidance system for a TOW is a pair of eyeballs and unless the Russians know how to kill the guy operating the launcher then they don't have shit aside from a press release to fool or distract the uninformed.

The Shtora system doesn't jam the missile. It mucks with the optical targeting system held by the operator. It is 80-90% successful when the operator is within 2km of the Shtora emitters.

It has been omitted from the most current upgrade due to the TOW 2's back check system, and range increases which put the operator outside of Shtora's performance envelope.

The T-90 that was hit in Syria did not have the Shtora system on during the attack.

[BartSimpson]

I suppose the other thing to note is that while Ivan might have some nice toys he has few of them.

Ivan has less than twenty of the spiffy T-14 tanks and plans to build more are nothing more than plans.

The bulk of Ivan's active armor is still the venerable T-72.

Almost all of Ivan's reserve armor is in such disrepair that it will NEVER see active duty ever again.

What's really full of win is that the Russian army still counts the several thousand tanks they left at their Kharkov refitting facility as being 'reserve' units despite the fact that these things haven't been maintained since 1995 and that all of these tanks are now inside of Ukraine.

In short, the CF might not be able to kill around 20 Russian tanks. No biggie.

[Winnipegger]

Canadian army pulls anti-tank missiles out of storage as tensions increase with Russia
Is someone reading our posts?

[maldonsfecht]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Canadian army pulls anti-tank missiles out of storage as tensions increase with Russia
Is someone reading our posts?

this is the original story this conversation was based on as seen in the original post...