Jump to content


Photo

Afganit Aps Vs Apfsds-T


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,942 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 0724 AM

I realise no one here will know for certain, but what are your thoughts about the Latest Russian APS potential capability vs large calibre APFSDS?
  • 0

#2 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,135 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1237 PM

Why not?


  • 0

#3 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1453 PM

I say if the Trophy and Iron Fist APS could do it more than 13 years ago, then no reason a Russian counterpart won't be able to do it.

I have one thought, though, that I wish to express.
The Afganit's launcher setup has some distinct advantages and disadvantages in both anti-KE and anti-CE, but I believe that in anti-KE the cons outweigh the pros.
I will compare it with the Iron Fist because it's the only other APS currently capable of anti-KE, and since both are opposites in the rotating vs static launcher debate in APS.

1. A rotating launcher will limit the number of grenades in total. An initial IDF requirement led IMI to develop a 3-grenade launcher. However, an analysis of the minimal reaction time needed for proper defense against APFSDS reduced the number to 2, as a 3-grenade launcher could not swivel quickly enough to react to threats.

Conclusion: A static launcher has the reaction time advantage.
Also, a static launcher may have the total ammunition advantage.

2. A static launcher, as positioned in the Armata, has all launchers offset in a manner that only a few may be available to counter an APFSDS at a time.
From the same angle, the Afghanit may be able to counter only 1 projectile, or at best 2.
The Iron Fist, on the other hand, would be able to defeat 2 projectiles at a time, or at best 4.

("At best" refers to cases where multiple launchers overlap in coverage. In both cases, overlapping coverage would be available in most angles of approach.)

Conclusion: Rotating launchers have the relevant ammunition advantage.
To clarify, static launchers positioned on the sides are less likely to be relevant, and if only they're left, the turret will likely not turn quickly enough to counter the threat.

3. A rotating launcher can dictate the angle of approach of the countermeasure. A static launcher cannot.
Therefore the Iron Fist can and will always fire its grenade in a way that will guarantee sufficient force is applied to the rod to induce tilt and yaw.
The Afghanit will, in most scenarios, have the grenade positioned sub-optimally relative to the KEP, and its attack vector will also be sub-optimal.
This may necessitate a substantially larger warhead for the Afghanit, and possibly a more spherical blast.

To clarify: The Iron Fist's design is one that allows "placing" the grenade relative to the rod in a way that both are parallel to each other and very close to one another, while the blast vector is ring-shaped and perpendicular to the rod.


I think overall the Iron Fist has the advantage here. But one possible reason why Afghanit was still designed the way it is, is that it can be seamlessly integrated into a turret whose signature management is highly important.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk, 15 September 2019 - 1455 PM.

  • 0

#4 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,942 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1534 PM

Why not?

 

I'm not saying it's not capable, nor that any other system is or is not, nor to what degree. I'm asking for information. Zuk's response was pretty comprehensive - what do you think?


  • 0

#5 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,016 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1551 PM

Mighty_Zuk is correct on each point, but IMO the Russians made the right decision in going with the fixed launchers.

A swiveling launcher's response time disadvantage grows more pronounced as the interceptor mass increases, and both reaction time and interceptor mass (and thus payload) have an effect on the system's ability to degrade incoming long-rods.

The further away from the vehicle the interceptor intercepts the long-rod, the more the long-rod will yaw before it strikes the vehicle. The larger the interceptor warhead mass, the more explosive power and fragment mass it will have (or the larger its linear shaped charge width, if they're going with the Nozh approach).

Russian tanks are relatively light, and even though they incorporate ingeniously mass-efficient armor, they lack the mass budget to stop western long-rods. In ODS we saw how very overmatched Saddam's tanks were against the older generation long-rods. Armata has an innovative redesigned armor envelope, but its mass budget is still quite small. Afganit APS needs to degrade long-rod threats sufficiently to prevent them from punching through their armor.

A swiveling launcher like Trophy might be able to get interceptors on-target more precisely and reliably, and it might be able to make use of more of its munitions in an engagement, but this means nothing if an interception does not prevent the vehicle's armor from being defeated.

This is speculative, since pertinent details of Afganit are not known, but I suspect Afganit's fixed launchers means much larger, heavier interceptors can intercept long-rods far enough distant from the vehicle to prevent the long-rod from defeating the vehicle's armor.

Of particular interest is whether Afghit's interceptors have straightforward fragmenting explosive warheads, or if they incorporate a side-facing linear shaped charge (similar to Nozh's linear shaped charges) for cutting a notch in the long-rod's side. That would change the character of the protection afforded, and also make Afganit's effectiveness less sensitive to the distance between the vehicle and the point of interception.

Edited because I misspelled Armata, but also to add: Trophy's approach still makes sense for the IDF because of the differences in the problem they are trying to solve. Merkava (and western tanks in general) has comparatively heavy armor, and the long-rods thrown at them are comparatively less effective, so a successful intercept does prevent penetration. The Russians are facing a different balance -- lighter armor, more effective long-rods.

Edited by TTK Ciar, 15 September 2019 - 1605 PM.

  • 0

#6 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,787 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1640 PM

The susceptibility of long rod designs to hard kill doesn't need to correlate with their performance against passive protection.

 

 

Trophy has a reaction time of 300+ milliseconds. That's relevant against APFSDS only at extremely long ranges, if at all. A long rod may travel 600+ m before Trophy even only launches its munition. Much tank warfare in European terrain could be at less than 500 m, and by far the most at less than 2,000 m.

 

https://defense-and-...-afv-state.html

 

 

I suppose a turret front hard kill APS against KE & CE threats + movable launchers against CE threats on rear edges of the turret (capable of intercepting diving ATGMs) would be fine.

APS do contribute to the by now terribly high costs of tanks, though. Maybe a really quick multispectal smoke deployment offers ~90% of the utility for much less effort.

 

After all, it's not just MBT that are tasked to expose themselves to direct fires. IFVs and a couple specialist vehicles such as FOVs need to do so as well. This may add up to 100...150 vehicles per brigade, especially if you equip air defence and command vehicles as well.


  • 0

#7 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1849 PM

Mighty_Zuk is correct on each point, but IMO the Russians made the right decision in going with the fixed launchers.

A swiveling launcher's response time disadvantage grows more pronounced as the interceptor mass increases, and both reaction time and interceptor mass (and thus payload) have an effect on the system's ability to degrade incoming long-rods.

The further away from the vehicle the interceptor intercepts the long-rod, the more the long-rod will yaw before it strikes the vehicle. The larger the interceptor warhead mass, the more explosive power and fragment mass it will have (or the larger its linear shaped charge width, if they're going with the Nozh approach).

Russian tanks are relatively light, and even though they incorporate ingeniously mass-efficient armor, they lack the mass budget to stop western long-rods. In ODS we saw how very overmatched Saddam's tanks were against the older generation long-rods. Armata has an innovative redesigned armor envelope, but its mass budget is still quite small. Afganit APS needs to degrade long-rod threats sufficiently to prevent them from punching through their armor.

A swiveling launcher like Trophy might be able to get interceptors on-target more precisely and reliably, and it might be able to make use of more of its munitions in an engagement, but this means nothing if an interception does not prevent the vehicle's armor from being defeated.

This is speculative, since pertinent details of Afganit are not known, but I suspect Afganit's fixed launchers means much larger, heavier interceptors can intercept long-rods far enough distant from the vehicle to prevent the long-rod from defeating the vehicle's armor.

Of particular interest is whether Afghit's interceptors have straightforward fragmenting explosive warheads, or if they incorporate a side-facing linear shaped charge (similar to Nozh's linear shaped charges) for cutting a notch in the long-rod's side. That would change the character of the protection afforded, and also make Afganit's effectiveness less sensitive to the distance between the vehicle and the point of interception.

Edited because I misspelled Armata, but also to add: Trophy's approach still makes sense for the IDF because of the differences in the problem they are trying to solve. Merkava (and western tanks in general) has comparatively heavy armor, and the long-rods thrown at them are comparatively less effective, so a successful intercept does prevent penetration. The Russians are facing a different balance -- lighter armor, more effective long-rods.


The approach of tilting a rod does not require a lot of base armor. Even the side armor of at least most tanks would be able to resist the residual penetration.

IMI, in their marketing footage, showed a the effects of a tilted rod against steel plates, in two extreme cases (target plates were placed in similar value positive slope and negative slope). In one of the extreme cases, only paint was removed and maybe 2mm were 'slapped off'.

In the other, the teething effect tore only a few cm into the steel plate.

The defeat mechanism would not involve any fragmentation. It's why IMI says their warhead is fragmentation-free.
Afghanit's warhead may intentionally contain a small section of fragments to defeat ATGMs coming in at odd AoA, such as diving, or from between the axes of the launchers.

Anyway, the main defeat mechanism would be a strong, fragment-free blast creating a tight ring of force that would push the rod.
Position is extremely important because the closer the blast is to the tip or tail, the better the yaw.
If it's close to the center, it may just push it downwards and still degrade penetration, but not complete defeat.

Fragments would simply fulfill no function.
  • 0

#8 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1911 PM

The susceptibility of long rod designs to hard kill doesn't need to correlate with their performance against passive protection.
 
 
Trophy has a reaction time of 300+ milliseconds. That's relevant against APFSDS only at extremely long ranges, if at all. A long rod may travel 600+ m before Trophy even only launches its munition. Much tank warfare in European terrain could be at less than 500 m, and by far the most at less than 2,000 m.
 
https://defense-and-...-afv-state.html
 
 
I suppose a turret front hard kill APS against KE & CE threats + movable launchers against CE threats on rear edges of the turret (capable of intercepting diving ATGMs) would be fine.
APS do contribute to the by now terribly high costs of tanks, though. Maybe a really quick multispectal smoke deployment offers ~90% of the utility for much less effort.
 
After all, it's not just MBT that are tasked to expose themselves to direct fires. IFVs and a couple specialist vehicles such as FOVs need to do so as well. This may add up to 100...150 vehicles per brigade, especially if you equip air defence and command vehicles as well.


Not sure where the 300ms came from, but it's a function of the sensory suit, logical path of the sub-routines, and mechanical movement.

Mechanical movement may only be a small part of that reaction time. I am in no position to speculate, but since it's smaller and lighter than Iron Fist's, I conclude it's indeed insignificant enough.

Trophy's sensors are radars and are therefore inherently slower than optical sensors by several orders of magnitude.
Their speed, however, is more than adequate for KEPs within typical engagement range.

If you want to shorten the time for closer ranges, optical sensors need to be added. And I repeat, added, not as a replacement for a radar. Radars do have several very significant contributions to an APS.

That's why some Trophy radar canisters were observed with inserts for what is likely EO sensors. That, combined with an IDF request to have an anti-KE capability by 2020.

With such a mixed system, reaction times may vary. For extremely short ranges, few ms is possible. For longer ranges it's going to be much more. Either way, 300ms is now an irrelevant figure.
  • 0

#9 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,135 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 0110 AM

I'm asking for information.


Sadly there's extremely little of that stuff. For what we know - it's most possibly rocket-type antimunition with limited steering and MEFP warhead. If I was to quess - rotating one with EFPs being lined in flight axis with minimal offset to increase Pk. If that's the case - with enough reaction time it will counter APFSDS quite effectively by breaking them mid-flight. Won't help to lightly armored vehicles like Kurg but will be totally enough for all forward arc of T-14.
  • 0

#10 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,135 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 0118 AM

Russian tanks are relatively light, and even though they incorporate ingeniously mass-efficient armor, they lack the mass budget to stop western long-rods.

That's kinda oxymoron. Armor effectiveness is not directly correlated with armor, nor soviet/russian tanks are "too light". Mass growth potential is there even for older chassis. They are not not making tanks heavier because "They can't".

In ODS we saw how very overmatched Saddam's tanks were against the older generation long-rods.

This argument was beaten to death already. Those were essentialy early 70s tanks against mid to late 80s ammunition. How that should push us to the conclusion about effectiveness of armor?
  • 0

#11 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,369 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 0138 AM

Problem with T-14(and other so called "perspective" AFV's) is that part of protection levels could be given taking into account APS, "it will protect from M829A3/A4/A5/etc from 2-1km only with assistance of APS, without APS it can't protect from it" and so on, an of course APS will work(seriosly doubt about real effectivness of any real APS vs moder APFSDS) against APFSDS only on some striking velocites (3-2km maybe),other problem it's not soviet design so it's basically "western sized tank" with "eastern mass limitations"

 

About "Russian tanks are relatively ligh...", Challenger 1 with 60 tonn have hull front not much thicker than T-72, Leopard 2 hull sides and structural strength of whole tank... well you better not hit it with anything bigger than 12.7, and it's frontal armour seems to be not so strong as everybody loves to tell, and so on...

 

 if you take german reports about 120mm DM13 and 23 APFSDS, there could be problems with T-80BV-alike frontal armour even point blank.


Edited by Wiedzmin, 16 September 2019 - 0141 AM.

  • 0

#12 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,787 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 0558 AM

Not sure where the 300ms came from, (...)

 

From an article in an unofficially ministry-related professional journal, written by
 

 

The author was Dieter Haug, a present and long-time employee of the German ministry of defence, department for procurement and occupied with protection technologies.

 

as was written in the link I provided.

Simply read the link. It's a summary.

 

 

Trophy reaction time was stated as to be 300...350 ms. It's unlikely to have improved by much since then.


Edited by lastdingo, 16 September 2019 - 0605 AM.

  • 0

#13 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 0947 AM

Not sure where the 300ms came from, (...)

 
From an article in an unofficially ministry-related professional journal, written by
 

 
The author was Dieter Haug, a present and long-time employee of the German ministry of defence, department for procurement and occupied with protection technologies.

 
as was written in the link I provided.
Simply read the link. It's a summary.
 
 
Trophy reaction time was stated as to be 300...350 ms. It's unlikely to have improved by much since then.

That is likely a true figure, but as I have explained, is only relevant in a discussion about different sensors.
It was an effort to market the AMAP-ADS system that used only an EO sensor, which resulted in a substantially lower reaction time.

But ADS was marketed as an anti-KE system while Trophy is not.
And as Rafael is getting ready to make an anti-KE system, they're introducing EO sensors as well.
  • 0

#14 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,449 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 1636 PM

I realise no one here will know for certain, but what are your thoughts about the Latest Russian APS potential capability vs large calibre APFSDS?

 

It is something like add-on feature, a good addition, but nothing decisive, the same system (predecessor of “Afghanit”) called “Standard”, late Soviet development (T-95) had 0.5 probability of APFSDS neutralization.


  • 0

#15 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,005 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1248 PM

If you can cut a rod with a shot from an APS, you can also cut it with ERA. And where the residual armor is going to be good enough, the additional mass from the ERA is not going to be a large worry. Though if you hit it hard enough to cut it a far way out, you are also going to tilt it significantly. And so rotation of the rod or main rod fragment must be an important mechanism if APS is to be worth the additional expense and lower multi-hit capability in comparison to  ERA. Yes ERA is in use, but layouts are not built to maximise the potential for ERA (i.e. using a longer standoff to the base armor and a multi-layer array as in Nozh.


Edited by KV7, 17 September 2019 - 1642 PM.

  • 0

#16 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1340 PM

It's completely pointless to try and cut the rod when simply tilting it can so significantly downgrade its penetration capability, to the point where most tanks with base armor would be able to take an APFSDS to the side, and all would be able to do so with basic applique kits.
  • 0

#17 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,005 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1647 PM

It's completely pointless to try and cut the rod when simply tilting it can so significantly downgrade its penetration capability, to the point where most tanks with base armor would be able to take an APFSDS to the side, and all would be able to do so with basic applique kits.

But only pushing the rod to tilt is quite hard - you need the blast to be very close to the tip or tail of the rod. A rod like EFP can carry sufficient momentum a further distance way from the APS projectile.


Edited by KV7, 19 September 2019 - 0709 AM.

  • 0

#18 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1719 PM


It's completely pointless to try and cut the rod when simply tilting it can so significantly downgrade its penetration capability, to the point where most tanks with base armor would be able to take an APFSDS to the side, and all would be able to do so with basic applique kits.

But only pushing the rod to tilt is quite hard - you need the blast to be very close to the tip or tail of the rod. A rod like EFP can cary sufficient momentum a further way from the APS projectile.

That's why I raised the point of Afghanit's need in a large warhead because static launchers do not permit placing the warhead in the desired location every time.

And can you please rephrase your 2nd sentence? I did not understand.
  • 0

#19 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,005 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1726 PM

 

 

It's completely pointless to try and cut the rod when simply tilting it can so significantly downgrade its penetration capability, to the point where most tanks with base armor would be able to take an APFSDS to the side, and all would be able to do so with basic applique kits.

But only pushing the rod to tilt is quite hard - you need the blast to be very close to the tip or tail of the rod. A rod like EFP can cary sufficient momentum a further way from the APS projectile.

That's why I raised the point of Afghanit's need in a large warhead because static launchers do not permit placing the warhead in the desired location every time.

And can you please rephrase your 2nd sentence? I did not understand

Force from blast falls off very quickly with increased distance, whereas an EFP will lose momentum only weakly from air resistance. And so hitting the incoming round with an AFP does not require the APS projectile to come very close to the incoming rod.
 


Edited by KV7, 17 September 2019 - 1726 PM.

  • 0

#20 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,787 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 1142 AM

If you can cut a rod with a shot from an APS, you can also cut it with ERA. And where the residual armor is going to be good enough, the additional mass from the ERA is not going to be a large worry. Though if you hit it hard enough to cut it a far way out, you are also going to tilt it significantly. And so rotation of the rod or main rod fragment must be an important mechanism if APS is to be worth the additional expense and lower multi-hit capability in comparison to  ERA. Yes ERA is in use, but layouts are not built to maximise the potential for ERA (i.e. using a longer standoff to the base armor and a multi-layer array as in Nozh.

 

Cutting with linear shaped charges may be more difficult than with expanding rod tech unless the shaped charge opening angle is greater than 110° (the EFP realm). I know that there's some ERA with linear shaped charges, but that one has a well-defined (very short) distance to the incoming penetrator / shaped charge jet. APS could have miss distances up to a metre.

 

 

Personally, I suspect that a constructive interference blast (AESA-ish principle) is behind the 'directed energy' effect of AMAP-ADS (which was rebranded, but I forgot into what).


  • 0