An Israeli Shell in an Indian Tank

[Desert Fox]

Lofted trajectory does not mean top attack, as there is no way to assure that it will hit at effective point. It is only marketing BS. With that logic, refleks, Kornet, etc can be categorised as top attack as well, as they all have similar modes, so I do not see anything special.


Funny thing is that you made that amateur drawing, whithout knowledge of neither of both missiles trajectories, and angle of incidence (they are not that different).

Well, if we talk about probabilities, LAHAT will most likely not even hit such target as T-80UD as it's laser designator would alert it, and guidance will be disrupted.


It is not the only such weapon. But let's focus: In visual, tank warfare, LAHAT is useless compared with rest of munitions, in power, and because it's guidance will be disrupted. In non visual engagements, there can be used comparable munitions to LAHAT, so it has no place for tank use, hence it was not purchased neither by Israel, nor Germany, nor India despite it's promotion.


Conventional munitions start to be affected by serious dispersion, loss of effectiveness, from 2 km. Missiles are effective at more than double that range, and more powerfull.


Your infantry may not be able to perform all tasks. For non visual engagements you need early warning, to know location of enemy, and they must be tracked by those external means (vehicles, aerial, etc) this cannot be always provided, and this is not as effective as direct engagements.


This is nosense. If there is a screen which does not allow visual engagement, then you obviously cannot aquire target, neither by conventional munitions, guided or unguided. So I do not see the point of that statement.

Obviously, you cannot alert the target if you want to engage it effectively. This is understood in modern warfare. Laser range finders to measure distance, are pointed not at target but at a near point in order to not alert it. Guided projectiles have been developed accordingly, for example using laser beam guidance not pointed against target, but at missile. This is not realised in Lahat, where you need to point directly with laser designator, alerting the target and calling for countermeasures.


Among lossess there can be about 50 hp lost in transmission, 150 hp lost in refrigeration, etc, etc. Under extreme hot temperatures this can be exacerbated, leading to serious losses and malfunction. This of course has nothing to do with effectiveness of APS against projectiles, anyway, you should bring sources, to prove otherwise, but I know that already.

You are very well informed about this particular subject, what do you think of the Ukrainian KOMBAT ATGM?

 

[mnd]

You are very well informed about this particular subject, what do you think of the Ukrainian KOMBAT ATGM?

Kombat is analogous in capabilities to Russian Invar-M (developement of Refleks). It is fully compatible, uses the same guidance system, but missile itself is rather different and it is not really based on Refleks or Invar. Characteristics are very similar to the latter as said, tandem warhead with high penetration, more than 5 km range, guidance is completely safe and cannot be disrupted, as laser beam is directed at missile.

It is really the same as Invar-M, only real difference is somewhat different missile construction, and that it is made in Ukraine.

 

[Desert Fox]

Kombat is analogous in capabilities to Russian Invar-M (developement of Refleks). It is fully compatible, uses the same guidance system, but missile itself is rather different and it is not really based on Refleks or Invar. Characteristics are very similar to the latter as said, tandem warhead with high penetration, more than 5 km range, guidance is completely safe and cannot be disrupted, as laser beam is directed at missile.

It is really the same as Invar-M, only real difference is somewhat different missile construction, and that it is made in Ukraine.

Are KOMBAT's capabilities superior to that of LAHAT?

 

[mnd]

Are KOMBAT's capabilities superior to that of LAHAT?

KOMBAT (and Invar-M) are superior in performance, both in higher penetration, 900-850mm of RHA after ERA against 700mm of weaker LAHAT warhead. Probability of neutralisation (probability of hit, probability of penetrating armour) of KOMBAT and Invar-M against frontal armour of tank as M1A2 is more than 50 %, which means 1-2 missiles are enought to neutralise it, compared to 2-3 of LAHAT.

Guidance method of Kombat and Invar is also superior, as target cannot be alerted when missile is fired and it is countermeasures proof. Lahat needs a laser to designate target, which will alert tank, and disrupt it's guidance with countermeasures.

 

[Desert Fox]

KOMBAT (and Invar-M) are superior in performance, both in higher penetration, 900-850mm of RHA after ERA against 700mm of weaker LAHAT warhead. Probability of neutralisation (probability of hit, probability of penetrating armour) of KOMBAT and Invar-M against frontal armour of tank as M1A2 is more than 50 %, which means 1-2 missiles are enought to neutralise it, compared to 2-3 of LAHAT.

Guidance method of Kombat and Invar is also superior, as target cannot be alerted when missile is fired and it is countermeasures proof. Lahat needs a laser to designate target, which will alert tank, and disrupt it's guidance with countermeasures.

I see, Pakistan has bought KOMBAT ATGM's from Ukraine, presumably to be used through the main gun of Pakistani MBT's like the T-80UD we imported from Ukraine as well as our Al-Khalids.



"Armament

Al-Khalid is designed with a 125 mm (length: 48 calibers) smoothbore, auto-frettaged and chrome-plated gun barrel which can fire the following types of conventional ammunition: APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS. Despite a common belief that the gun is Chinese, it was later changed to a modified variant of KBA-3 series of 125 mm smooth bore gun for Al-khalid mbt which provided compatibility with Ukrainian ATGMs such as Kombat. Gun-launched, laser-guided anti-tank guided missiles can also be launched and two types are believed to be in use on the Al-Khalid, the Russian-designed 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) produced in China under licence and the Ukrainian-designed Kombat,[18] which may have been modified in Pakistan to incorporate a larger warhead.[19]"

Al-Khalid tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kombat - 125mm AT Missile - YouTube

 

[PteX]

KOMBAT (and Invar-M) are superior in performance, both in higher penetration, 900-850mm of RHA after ERA against 700mm of weaker LAHAT warhead. Probability of neutralisation (probability of hit, probability of penetrating armour) of KOMBAT and Invar-M against frontal armour of tank as M1A2 is more than 50 %, which means 1-2 missiles are enought to neutralise it, compared to 2-3 of LAHAT.

Guidance method of Kombat and Invar is also superior, as target cannot be alerted when missile is fired and it is countermeasures proof. Lahat needs a laser to designate target, which will alert tank, and disrupt it's guidance with countermeasures.

You seem to be making quite bold claims though if memory serves, the soviets always said their weapons were superior and during wars they always proved not to be.
How many thousands of Russians died because of malfunctions of these superior weaponry?

 

[Desert Fox]

You seem to be making quite bold claims though if memory serves, the soviets always said their weapons were superior and during wars they always proved not to be.
How many thousands of Russians died because of malfunctions of these superior weaponry?

Note, the key word is Soviet, today's Russia is not Soviet Union, and secondly since you yourself are making such a bold statement then advise your indian friends to cancel all of their defense contracts with Russia (T-50 PAKFA, T-90's) if Russian weapons lack in quality.

 

[PteX]

Note, the key word is Soviet, today's Russia is not Soviet Union, and secondly since you yourself are making such a bold statement then advise your indian friends to cancel all of their defense contracts with Russia (T-50 PAKFA, T-90's) if Russian weapons lack in quality.

Russians(Not soviets) only recently realized how inferior their weaponry was during the war with Georgia, and have been attempting to modernize their army ever since.

Even their own president admitted multiple times that they need major upgrades.

They are making advancements, upgrading and producing high quality warfare technology but most of their new technology is not battle proven.

 

[Abingdonboy]

indian army doesnt use VATRA APS because its ukrainian not russian... and the APS rejected was Shotra.

Why does it make a difference whether the system is Ukrainian? The system was rejected on purely TECHINCAL grounds nothing else. The system failed in Indian tests and India had other much better systems on offer.


+ we all know what is really behind this- God forbid India get a decent weapons system.

 

[500]

Lofted trajectory does not mean top attack, as there is no way to assure that it will hit at effective point. It is only marketing BS. With that logic, refleks, Kornet, etc can be categorised as top attack as well, as they all have similar modes, so I do not see anything special.

Kornet and Refleks dont have any lofted trajectory. Lofted trajectory gives huge benefits: 2.5 times at least (in case of al Khalid - much more).

Funny thing is that you made that amateur drawing, whithout knowledge of neither of both missiles trajectories, and angle of incidence (they are not that different).

They are absolutelly different.

Well, if we talk about probabilities, LAHAT will most likely not even hit such target as T-80UD as it's laser designator would alert it, and guidance will be disrupted.

1) Laser warning is not a miracle. Otherwise all world tanbks wuld have them.
2) Laser warning on T-80 is not effective.
3) Beam riders can be warned in same way, no advantage here.

It is not the only such weapon. But let's focus: In visual, tank warfare, LAHAT is useless compared with rest of munitions, in power, and because it's guidance will be disrupted. In non visual engagements, there can be used comparable munitions to LAHAT, so it has no place for tank use, hence it was not purchased neither by Israel, nor Germany, nor India despite it's promotion.

Stop ur hallucinations. Laser guided Mavericks and Hellfires are purchased by dosen countries and are one of the most effective anti tank weapons around. Same exactly method uses Russian round Krasnopol.

Reason we dont purchase Lahat is that ranges beoyin 5 km almost not exist here and we cover them with regular rounds. Nothing to do with guidance. We produced beam rider missiles (MAPATS) in 80-es.

Conventional munitions start to be affected by serious dispersion, loss of effectiveness, from 2 km. Missiles are effective at more than double that range, and more powerfull.

Round from big range has very decent chance to disable tank even if not penetrate. 125-mm flat trajectory Refleks is not effectove against frontal armor of modern tanks either.

Your infantry may not be able to perform all tasks. For non visual engagements you need early warning, to know location of enemy, and they must be tracked by those external means (vehicles, aerial, etc) this cannot be always provided, and this is not as effective as direct engagements.

Infantry is covering tanks and it can lase target no problem.

This is nosense. If there is a screen which does not allow visual engagement, then you obviously cannot aquire target, neither by conventional munitions, guided or unguided. So I do not see the point of that statement.

I detect beam ride laser and put smoke screen. Voila guidance is disrpuped. So beam ride does not give any advantage over laser spot.

Obviously, you cannot alert the target if you want to engage it effectively. This is understood in modern warfare. Laser range finders to measure distance, are pointed not at target but at a near point in order to not alert it. Guided projectiles have been developed accordingly, for example using laser beam guidance not pointed against target, but at missile. This is not realised in Lahat, where you need to point directly with laser designator, alerting the target and calling for countermeasures.

And again, modern laser warning recievers do detect beam riders. There is no any advantage.

Among lossess there can be about 50 hp lost in transmission, 150 hp lost in refrigeration, etc, etc. Under extreme hot temperatures this can be exacerbated, leading to serious losses and malfunction. This of course has nothing to do with effectiveness of APS against projectiles, anyway, you should bring sources, to prove otherwise, but I know that already.

So when u lose 150 hp in refrigeration losing another 3 hp wont change absolutelly nothing. Your explanation is complete joke. Especially since laser warning device consume virtually nothing. As for sources, you can check also Greek trials, where Shtora also failed.

 

[mnd]

Kornet and Refleks dont have any lofted trajectory. Lofted trajectory gives huge benefits: 2.5 times at least (in case of al Khalid - much more).

You are not familiarised with this subject, so I'll show. In these beam riding missiles, you only need to visually maintain sight on target, then laser beam is directed with a special algorithm to reach target with a certain trajectory, depending on mode chosen.

Laser beam is directed at missile, not at target, so it cannot alert it. Missile flies in loafted trajectory, to avoid obstacles, and for laser beam not to incede on target:

Target is only irradiated by beam at final phase, for only 0.1-0.2 seconds which is not enought to deploy countermeasures.

You also see, that this is loafted trajectory, same as Lahat, you can call it top attack, if you want to

And this is your vaunted top attack mode:
LAHAT - Laser Homing Attack or Laser Homing Anti-Tank - YouTube

No different than rest of such missiles. And where can it be considered a hit on top ?

1) Laser warning is not a miracle. Otherwise all world tanbks wuld have them.
2) Laser warning on T-80 is not effective.
3) Beam riders can be warned in same way, no advantage here.

1- Most of modern tanks indeed have, and not just that, but also APS.
2) If you refer to T-80UD, it has Shtora, or Varta APS which easily detects LAHAT powerfull designator laser and disrupts it's guidance.
3- there is no way to be alerted as I explained above.

Stop ur hallucinations. Laser guided Mavericks and Hellfires are purchased by dosen countries and are one of the most effective anti tank weapons around. Same exactly method uses Russian round Krasnopol.

But here we are discussing different things. If you want to compare Lahat, as anti-tank weapon, used, fired by tank, as explained, it is innefective and vulnerable. If you want to compare it as non visual engagement weapon, it is ok, and there are many such munitions, fired not only from tanks, but the latter is not in the subject.

Reason we dont purchase Lahat is that ranges beoyin 5 km almost not exist here and we cover them with regular rounds. Nothing to do with guidance. We produced beam rider missiles (MAPATS) in 80-es.

I am not talking only about Israel which could have different needs. It is that nobody bought Lahat for tanks at the moment, meanwhile several countries operate missiles as Refleks, Invar, etc. It's vulnerability and rather weak penetration, reflected that, in poor demand.

Round from big range has very decent chance to disable tank even if not penetrate. 125-mm flat trajectory Refleks is not effectove against frontal armor of modern tanks either.

Accuracy (dispersion) and penetration ability (velocity) of conventional round is seriously reduced departing from 2km. Consequently neutralisation probability (given by probability of impact on target, and probability to penetrate armour) is seriously reduced, compared to missile:

Attempt to neutralise tank from more than 2-2.5 km range, complete joke.

Infantry is covering tanks and it can lase target no problem.

It is not as simple.

detect beam ride laser and put smoke screen. Voila guidance is disrpuped. So beam ride does not give any advantage over laser spot.

No, there is no way to detect and counter, as I explained above, so I will not answer again, as I already did.

So when u lose 150 hp in refrigeration losing another 3 hp wont change absolutelly nothing. Your explanation is complete joke. Especially since laser warning device consume virtually nothing. As for sources, you can check also Greek trials, where Shtora also failed.

That was an example, and it is not that simple. Do you know how serious is loss, operating at extreme temperatures, of about 50 degreed in desert, where apart from that, can occur serious malfunctions, it is far more complicated.

But you have nothing to back up your statements, and logic is contradictory, as this APS is operated by several countries, and is countinously being improved.

 

[500]

I will just summarize:

Advantages of Lahat over Refleks:

1) Much bigger range 8 km vs. 5 km.
2) Much bigger probability to penetrate thanks to lofted attack mode (800-900 mm of Reflex is simply not enough vs modern tanks).
3) Ability to fire from closed positions.

The only thing Relflex can say that it has better jamming resistance thanks to beam ride. But its nonsense for many reasons:

1) Modern laser detectors can detect beam ride as well.
2) Shtora laser detectors failed in trials.
3) No operational Pakistani tanks actually have them at all.

P.S. For your knowledge. Laser detectors consume about 10 Wt of energy. Thats less than 1/70000 of engine's power.

PPS.

Spare me of than nonsense for gods sake. 50% probability from point blank range? Zero probability from 3.5 km?

From Greek trials:

4 Комплекс “Штора”

Комплекс оптико-электронного подавления “Штора” не обеспечивает реагирование на излучение лазерного дальномера зарубежных танков типа "Леопард-1А5", "Лсопард-2А5", М-60АЗ. Срабатывание комплекса “Штора” происходило только при облучении с танка Т-84 (Украин&#1072, аналогичное срабатывание происходило и у системы, установленной на танке Т-84.

4. The Shtora system

The Shtora optical-electronic suppression system does not provide a response to the radiation of a laser rangefinder foreign tanks such as "Leopard 1A5", "Leopard-2A5", M-60A3. Operation of "Shtora" system occurred only after irradiation with a T-84 (Ukraine), a similar operation took place with the system installed on the T-84.

 

[ARSENAL6]

The overwhelming majority of Al Khalids dont have these system:

Other 2500+ Pakistani tanks dont have them either. India, the major user of T-90 tanks, rejected this system:

Algeria too:

The newest Russian T-90MS model also does not have it:

So who else remained in the world?

.

Still on rant on How Kalid Tanks are rubbish ? Seriously 500

.


If someone calls all Palestinians terrorists he is a Nazi .


.

Thank you for you to agree that YOU are the NAzi. Maybe nextime in future YOU will consider that Palistian plight, stop you unnessarly hatred and recognise them as human beings.

Reading your post 500 of the level of stupity, tends to killl ones brain cell as they read it. I can understand why Israel lost the 2006 seige if you are serving in armour force of IDF. SO GET THE F**K OUT of Israel you insensate faker. Of course at one point you will reply like you always do and continue trolling...sad really.

 

[500]

Thank you for you to agree that YOU are the NAzi. Maybe nextime in future YOU will consider that Palistian plight, stop you unnessarly hatred and recognise them as human beings.

I never said Palestinians are not human beings. Most of the Palestinians are good people.

 

[mnd]

I will just summarize:

Advantages of Lahat over Refleks:

1) Much bigger range 8 km vs. 5 km.
2) Much bigger probability to penetrate thanks to lofted attack mode (800-900 mm of Reflex is simply not enough vs modern tanks).
3) Ability to fire from closed positions.

Advantages of Refleks/Invar:
- More powerfull warhead, >50% of success to neutralise modern tank from front, Lahat, weaker 700mm, 2 or 3 against frontal engagement are needed.
Lahat and Refleks, have same loafted trajectory:

Lahat will only warn the tank from 5km with it's laser designator, Refleks as shown, irradiates nothing until last second.

The only thing Relflex can say that it has better jamming resistance thanks to beam ride. But its nonsense for many reasons:

1) Modern laser detectors can detect beam ride as well.
2) Shtora laser detectors failed in trials.
3) No operational Pakistani tanks actually have them at all.

1- As I shown in the picture, they only irradiate in the last 0.1-0.2 seconds, wheter system will detect it or not, is irrelevant.
2- This is talk with no proofs, no base.
3- Many have them, or atleast laser warning device. BTW, they use Varta, not Shtora.

P.S. For your knowledge. Laser detectors consume about 10 Wt of energy. Thats less than 1/70000 of engine's power.

You know problems associated with work under 50 degrees in desert ? Otherwise you provide nothing here.

PPS.
Spare me of than nonsense for gods sake. 50% probability from point blank range? Zero probability from 3.5 km?

It shows comparison, of AFPSDS and missile. Probability of neutralistation reflected in graphic, depends on probability of hit, and probability of armour perforation. It is you who does not understand, that AFPSDS looses effectiveness at more than 2km due to loss of velocity, and acurracy due to dispersion, so I showed you a graphic.

From Greek trials:

4. The Shtora system

The Shtora optical-electronic suppression system does not provide a response to the radiation of a laser rangefinder foreign tanks such as "Leopard 1A5", "Leopard-2A5", M-60A3. Operation of "Shtora" system occurred only after irradiation with a T-84 (Ukraine), a similar operation took place with the system installed on the T-84.

"

Созданный в конце 80-х годов, комплекс «Штора» обеспечивает предупреждения экипажа о лазерном облучении танка в спектральном диапазоне 0.7-2.5 мкм и обеспечивает постановку активных помех противотанковым комплексам с полуавтоматической системой наведения путем постановки многоспектральных аэрозольных завес, погашающих лазерное излучение."

Shtora originally, reacts only to wavelenght range between 0.7-2.5 micrometres, some modern range finders, operate in shorter, until 0.63 micrometres, or longer, up to 10,6 micrometres wavelenght. But Pakistan uses Varta system:

Украинские разработчики уже создали усовершенствованный комплекс, оптические элементы которого выполнены на основе селенида цинка (ZnSe) и включающий координатно-чувствительные фотоприемники детекторных головок, обеспечивающие достаточную чувствительность в широком спектральном диапазоне длин волн 0,6 – 14 мкм. Это обусловлено оптической прозрачностью линз на основе селенида цинка в данном рабочем диапазоне.

Varta, and modern Shtora, react to 0.6-14 micrometers wavelenght, against all kind of rangefinders.

Wait a moment, here are the specifications, of Lahat laser designator, by IAI (Israel Aerospace Industries, designer of Lahat and it's guidance system):

http://starkaerospace.com/pdfs/POP300D Web Brochure.pdf

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Laser Designator & Range Finder:
Wavelength: 1.06 μm for designation mode
1.54 μm (eye-safe) for ranging mode

The laser designator operates in 1.06 micrometers, that falls in sensivity range of 0.7-2.5 micrometres of original Shtora. So you see how usefull it is . Case closed.