Tendencije razvoja savremenih tenkova

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Dejan84 ::

Nadam se da mislio na istu osobu, uglavnom je aktivan na paluba.info. Radio je za novi kineski tenk i od njega napravio, ono što mi nismo s vihorom. Zeznuli su ga ovi iz jugoimporta. Bilo bi super ga dovesti ga ovde!

Nije,koliko znam on ne pise ni na jednom forumu,i nije iz rbije,rus je.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

jos jednom, 3.put:

Wire-guided missiles such as the American TOW are guided to the target by means of a wire and a flare on the back of the missile. The flare is used to keep a 'reference point' of the missile in relationship to the target lock held by the operator, and the guidance computer tries to put the flare on the reference point. Shtora emitters create a large hotspot, essentially tricking the missile guidance into following the Shtora hotspot instead of the flare hotspot, resulting in faulty course corrections by the ATGW computer. In fact, the computer shall usually believe that no horisontal course correction is necessary since the false flare comes from the same direction as the targeted tank, while vertical corrections shall cause ATGM to either dive into the ground or climb into the sky, depending on whether the operator holds the lock below or above the emitters.

stora ne zaslepljuje - nigde toga nema - stora nudi novi hotspot, tacnije tacku koju prati sistem za navodjenje.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Dejan84 ::

Nadam se da mislio na istu osobu, uglavnom je aktivan na paluba.info. Radio je za novi kineski tenk i od njega napravio, ono što mi nismo s vihorom. Zeznuli su ga ovi iz jugoimporta. Bilo bi super ga dovesti ga ovde!

Dejane, on jeste clan ovog foruma pod drugim nick-om, a sada zasto ovde ne pise, ... pa pogadjaj.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

svi ucesnici u raspravi su duzni da se prema sagovornicima bez obzira na njihov nivo znanja odnose sa postovanjem i da se uzdrze od medjusobnih kvalifikacija. pisite ono sta znate i prepustite citaocu da proceni ko od vas poseduje znanje a ko ne. ne bi valjalo da se dogodi da moram ovo da ponavljam. hvala.

Dopuna: 06 Apr 2010 16:29

Dejan84 ::

I zašto onda Indija nije uzela svoj ajrun?

razlozi su subjektivni a ne objektivni, procitaj tekst u prilogu.

Dejan84 :: Mislim da je problem popravljen, koji je postojao u prvim isporučenim serijama!

ne, postoji citav niz problema koji do danas nisu ispravljeni. i, kad vec pomenu jeftinocu, sad ispade da t-90 uopste nije jeftin, kao sto i nije. evo sta na drugom forumu kaze jedan indus povodom toga. nadam se da se nece naci neko pametan da tvrdi kako zna bolje od njega


nitin
Sun 28 Mar 2010 1834

...

The Arjun MK1 with a limited production run of just 124 tanks costs Rs 16.8 Crores. The pared down T-90S, with 700 tanks plus (I forget how many Algeria ordered) costs Rs 17.5 Crores. 1 Crore = 10 Million.

So the Arjun is around $ 3.7 Million, whereas the T-90S is $ 3.87 Million.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/04/...d-t-90-tank.htm
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/03/...e-t72-tanks.htm

On the plus for the T-90S - the pared down version reportedly shares 67% logistics commonality with the T-72M1, whereas the Arjun needs new investments.

However, the issue is that the Arjun works but the pared down T-90S still doesnt. So those costs need to be factored in as more kit needs to be added to fix the problems.

1. It has significant issues with Thermal Imager operation. The Army tried fitting the Russian made std AC to it - failed in Indian trials, the tank driver reportedly had a heat stroke. A locally made Environmental Control system was fitted, didnt work. This is the issue with TI, you can imagine the issues when they try to shoehorn more electronics into the turret, eg BMS etc. So now the Army is still running around to fix the TI issue and issuing a global tender for new ECS custom made/modified for the T-90.

2. The Arjun has an APU. The T-90S does not. So the Army now is searching for an APU to add to the T-90S. More costs.

3. The Arjun has the Lahat - works ok. The INVAR on the T-90S dont, at least the ones supplied as kits to India.

4. The T-90S continues to face issues with transfer of technology. TOT for armour & gun barrels was denied despite India having paid TOT charges earlier. So the DRDO was then asked to come up with the armour tech. Whereas the gun barrel issue was resolved via negotiations.

5. The T-90S cannot accept Indian made ammunition. The Ballistic Computer was not designed for reconfiguraility apparently, and Russia said we never paid them for it. So now TATA (India) & DRDO are working on an Indian made BC that will replace the existing one on the T-90S.

6. Training costs for T-90S remain high as Russia is against India procuring simulators from third party companies. We are going ahead even so, CAE & a local firm are the bidders.

and,

7. The T-90S is stated to be vulnerable to advanced ATGMs - the Army is now looking for an APS to add to the T-90S. Probably the Arena system.

Even if we disregard the last viz APS (as the Arjun is slated to get a similar Israeli system) the other issues will definitely add to the cost. Logically speaking the cost is going to rise even more from ~$ 3.87 Million. If we factor in the APS, it will rise by a substantial amount.

The T-90 acquisition was really a kneejerk one in response to Pakistan getting the T-80 UD.

And they standardized on the tank without fixing the flaws which is the worrisome part. Some of these issues have persisted for almost a decade now and while workarounds may be done, to preserve tank combat ability (e.g procuring a high number of thermal imagers to account for the high wastage rate, using Army's own financial funds) they add to the costs and refute the assertion that the T-90 was a mature platform (at least the one in Indian service).

That apart, there has been a very high degree of last minute arm wrestling over this program. The tank ballistic computer issues, the armour TOT issues, the simulator problems ...in contrast, the Arjun simply does not have these problems. Also most importantly, the tank has better performance than the T-90 across the board - more accurate FCS, better fire on the move, more heavily protected and even better mobility, according to recent trials. The Arjun accelerated faster, and was faster throughout the terrain. It also has much better suspension and ergonomics.

Now, T- series tankers claim the Arjun is bigger than their tank so they are better off. I would disagree. In GW1, American and Allied tanks engaged much smaller T-72s with no problems. All that smaller size didnt help them much against image stabilized FCS equipped tanks with good stabilization, suspensions. The latest Pakistani and Chinese tanks all have similar systems, I doubt the marginal difference in size will allow the T-90s to escape being hit.

The basic problem is however that the T-90 still doesnt work and the Army has kept such a critical issue as silent as possible, so that they dont get critiqued for having done such hasty procurement, making a hodge podge out of established procedures.

The T-90 program has become India's equivalent of boondoggles elsewhere - "we bought it so it better work".

Another issue is the T-72 modernisation. Mismanagement at the Army & ministry level has meant that around 442 of the upgraded T-72s still dont have a thermal imager equipped modernized FCS. And the Army is still looking towards new engines, new transmissions and Air Conditioners for the tanks. After all this, these tanks will still be inferior to new build Chinese tanks and remain vulnerable against the latest gen AT weaponry, effectively making them second line units.

In a sensible world, we would just cap the T-72 upgrade at 1000 tanks, retire the oldest ones or mothball them & standardize on the Arjun and T-90S (provided the issues are fixed).

Here however, the Army is:
-Stalling the Arjun
- Still trying to fix the T-90S in a ad hoc fashion
- Going about the T-72 upgrade process with no end in sight

And now its talking of a FMBT. Apparently the Russians showed us their Work in Progress tech demo for their Future MBT, and now the Army thinks that is cool and wants to sign up, but still they are unsure about what they exactly need so no requirements have even been defined or revealed.

Its just bizarre, when one compares and contrasts the way the Israelis went about developing their MBTs via iterative development and improvement, and the manner in which the Israeli Army took ownership of the program.

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=3.....t=40&#

p.s. sto se tice ruske klime ugradjene u tenk.. vozac je imao toplotni udar. cenim da bi adrenalin tu znatno popravio stvari.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Ko sve od vas forumaša,pogotovo na ovom topicu ima iskustva sa tenkovima ? ko je prošao obuku na tenkovima i ko ima zvanje "tenkista" ? Pitam čisto onako iz znatiželje .

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

idemo dalje,

@ nslock

nslock :: Upravo to,to su jaki IC farovi koji stvore ogromno zaslepljujuce ic polje,kako se i vidi na snimku. Medjutim,ne gleda operater kroz pojacivac svetlosti,pa njemu smeta taj odsjaj,vec sam uredjaj se navodi tako sto hvata ic rakete(vatru i toplotu iz motora) i na taj nacin otkriva gde se nalazi raketa u odnosu na cilj,pa tako vrsi korekciju.Recimo bumbar tako radi.
Kada se upale IC lampe,uredjaj vise ne vidi ic rakete jer je zaslepljen,i ne zna gde se raketa nalazi,pa ne moze da je vodi. Tada raketa pokusa da izadje iz tog polja,jer joj jedinica salje korekciju putanje neznajuci gde se raketa uopste nalazipa odleti na gore.Operater za to vreme normalno kroz optiku gleda tenk,i ne zna sta se dogadja.

Isti princip vazi i za ic navodjenje rakete,koje se navode ''zakljucavanje'' ic zracenja (javelin) ali u ovom slucaju,raketa umesto malog cilja,ima veliki,i verovatno ce promasiti tenk,jer je zakljucala objekat npr 5-10X veci od tenka,pa ne zna gde se u tom polju tenk tacno nalazi.

ovo ne odgovara onom sto je napisao fofanov a citirao sebab, a samim tim ni realnosti. poenta je da jedinica za navodjenje uzme emiter store za polozaj rakete tj. dobije pogresnu predstavu o polozaju rakete i daje pogresnu korekciju putanje. jedinica nije "zaslepljena" niti postoji ikakvo "ogromno zaslepljujuce polje". drugo, jedinica za vodjenje ne odredjuje polozaj prema "toploti i vatri iz motora" nego prema markeru koji se nalazi na raketi. trece, javelin ima fpa senzor i tu nikakvi emiteri nemaju uticaja.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Ko ce ga znati sta je u pitanju. Da li Rusi zele zadrzati fabrike uposlene u krizi. Zajedno ulaze u projekat PAK-Fa, a ovamo postoji problem transfera tehnologije...

Indian Army inducts first indigenous T-90 tanks
August 24th, 2009
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/.....37314.html

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

kNikS ::

ovo ne odgovara onom sto je napisao fofanov a citirao sebab, a samim tim ni realnosti. poenta je da jedinica za navodjenje uzme emiter store za polozaj rakete tj. dobije pogresnu predstavu o polozaju rakete i daje pogresnu korekciju putanje. jedinica nije "zaslepljena" niti postoji ikakvo "ogromno zaslepljujuce polje". drugo, jedinica za vodjenje ne odredjuje polozaj prema "toploti i vatri iz motora" nego prema markeru koji se nalazi na raketi. trece, javelin ima fpa senzor i tu nikakvi emiteri nemaju uticaja.
Odgovara,ali je on to malo opisao na zbunjujuci nacin.
Jedinica za navodjenje nikada nece uzeti emiter shtore za referentnu tacku polozaja rakete,jer je jako lako napraviti uredjaj koji ce razlikovati ta dva izvora. Takodje,i kada bi uzeo,to bi znacilo da jedinica za vodjenje nece vrsiti nikakvu korekciju,jer se tacka ic lampe nalazi na tenku,pa samim tim nece ni vrsiti promenu pravca rakete. Navodjenje se vrsi u zavisnosti od sistema i po ic odrazu zadnjeg dela rakete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLW4PorVGAM
Na ovom filmu mozes na 3.25 videti to o cemu pricam,i nacin na koji radi shtora u tom rezimu,kao i ''zaslepljenje''koje vrsi.Tako zaslepljen,uredjaj ne moze da vidi raketu. Upravo iz tog nacina ometanja proizilazi i osnovno pravilo,da tenk mora mirovati,sto je malo neugodno dok se raketa krece prema tebi.

Javelin zakljucava ic izvor,ali on ne moze zakljucati ic izvor tenka,ako on pojacava ic zracenje sa dva reflektora,tada se dobija velika meta,i pitanje je sta bi se desilo,i gde bi javelin zaista pogodio.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

kNikS ::1. It has significant issues with Thermal Imager operation.
U pustinji ?

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

@
Vezano za Štoru
Uređaj za navođenje rakete prati traser, a ne izduvnik motora. Na nekima je to sporogoreća smesa, na nekome ksenonska lampa, na nekima kodirana lampa(promena inteziteta i jačine zračenja), a na nekima imamo matricu koja stvara niz simbola u toku leta rakete. U zavisnosti od složenosti trasera složena je i jedinica za njegovo praćenje. U zadnja dva primera je verovatno savremeni tragač koji je verovatno podržan i softverom za odbacivanje smetnji koje se ispoljavaju u obliku kontinuiranog i jednoličnog zračenja, bezobzira na površinu koju pokrivaju, pogotovo ako se ne pogodi talasno područje rada trasera. Naime, to su matrice, tu mogu da se postave i neki filteri i jedini način da se sigurno eliminišu je jako usmereno zračenje(laseri npr)
Da li grešim ili mi se čini da štora u takvim situacijama postaje malo neefikasna?