TR Altay Main Battle Tank & Related Programs

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,158
Reactions
67 7,693
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Well, you can only take too many serious notes to implement on a single platform. (No matter how advanced it is)

I imagine making effective APS that can cover 90 degree angle would be more difficult. But even when they are able to make it, two of the the most common way to kill tank remain effective. Artillery and mines.

When it comes to artillery, MRSI (multiple roudn simultaneous impact) is very likely to overrun any APS system.

And even without MRSI, any 155mm artillery shell packs 8.5-10.5kg TNT, meaning even when APS is able to intercept a supersonic artillery round in proximity, it's very powerful blast fragmentation would likely to knock out the electronics on top of tank turret (APS radar, gunner and commander sights, laser warning system)


Here is a representation by BAE System. You can observe that, if one can see the enemy first, then within seconds with just few 40mm smart air burst rounds, he can completely blind a tank and knock out its APS. (Faster than human operator can react) Even though it is technically very much possible, it still has more risk to failure in facing tanks like that in close combat.

However, a basic 155mm artillery shell even while being intercepted can achieve that with more certainty.
(Becuase APS cannot stop the powerful blast fragmentation effect)

Even better, at first enemy can fire a cluster shell with time/proximity fuze, which would almost garunteee killing the electronics on top of the turret, Followed by a regular shell.

While advanced systems like APS and right procedures and tactics (for effective combined arms) can relatively minimize the vulnerabilities, there are still practical ways to kill a tank equipped with 90 degree APS.

Bottom line is, technology cannot replace the mass. Turkish army would needs numbers along with the qualitative edge.


Note- By killing a tank I mean, neutralizing it and putting it out of commission, not necessarily penetrating the armor and killing its crews.
 
Last edited:

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
3,636
Reactions
4 3,888
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Altay was designed from the beginning to have much better protection from top-down attacks than those tanks. But it would still be good to put an extra radar panel on the roof facing upward and replace the commander's gun with something that can elevate 90+ degrees. Current drone mounted AT munitions wouldn't be able to penetrate Altay's roof but heavier ones in the future might.
Or a kind of top cage.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,201
Reactions
22 18,853
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
I think people are moving too far away from the core discussion.
It's pretty clear that you need to clear away artillery in order to advance with tanks and the likes with minimum casualty.

So I think most people are thinking of APS against ATGM, drones, loitering ammo and such which makes sense.
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,487
Reactions
81 16,847
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
Apart from ASELSAN's active protection systems such as Akkor, Pulat and Kama, Otokar also received a patent for the Modular Active Protection System. Otokar's system has a structure similar to Akkor, with 4 soft-kill launchers in addition to 4 hard-kill ones in the ammunition turret.

1697929223073.png


 

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
Apart from ASELSAN's active protection systems such as Akkor, Pulat and Kama, Otokar also received a patent for the Modular Active Protection System. Otokar's system has a structure similar to Akkor, with 4 soft-kill launchers in addition to 4 hard-kill ones in the ammunition turret.

View attachment 62163

Very interesting design. Though as with other APS designs composed of soft-kill and hard-kill, I wonder how the system will decide what to use, since a soft-kill system interrupts RF and IR wave transmission, basically disrupting APS' own sensors. I think the most basic solution would be algorithm based on threat detection distance, but this is also not perfect. Also, soft-kill needs longer detection distance compared to hard-kill for early warning, so I wonder how Otokar is going to implement this. Korea for example simply went with two separate radars, one of which was L-band for long-distance early warning. Would Otokar also pursue two-radar system? Maybe newer generation AESA radars for APS have enough range and discretion resolution that they could be used for both the early warning for soft-kill as well as projectile tracking for hard-kill.

Anyways, thanks for introducting the interesting design.
 

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
3,636
Reactions
4 3,888
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,487
Reactions
81 16,847
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
Very interesting design. Though as with other APS designs composed of soft-kill and hard-kill, I wonder how the system will decide what to use, since a soft-kill system interrupts RF and IR wave transmission, basically disrupting APS' own sensors. I think the most basic solution would be algorithm based on threat detection distance, but this is also not perfect. Also, soft-kill needs longer detection distance compared to hard-kill for early warning, so I wonder how Otokar is going to implement this. Korea for example simply went with two separate radars, one of which was L-band for long-distance early warning. Would Otokar also pursue two-radar system? Maybe newer generation AESA radars for APS have enough range and discretion resolution that they could be used for both the early warning for soft-kill as well as projectile tracking for hard-kill.

Anyways, thanks for introducting the interesting design.
The soft kill may be activated after receiving warning from a Laser Warning System of the armored vehicle. I don't think it would be effective against dumb rounds or fiber optic-guided ATGMs and some of the newer generation ATGMs. We could be talking about algorithm based on some kind of sensor fusion that allow the APS to take the decision depending on the mode of operation choosed.
 

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
The soft kill may be activated after receiving warning from a Laser Warning System of the armored vehicle. I don't think it would be effective against dumb rounds or fiber optic-guided ATGMs and some of the newer generation ATGMs. We could be talking about algorithm based on some kind of sensor fusion that allow the APS to take the decision depending on the mode of operation choosed.
That's one possibility, but most 3rd gen ATGMs simply doesn't need LRF or are F&F (so not laser beam-riding). It will only work against some Russian and Chinese designs that use laser beam-riding, their gun-launched missiles and US Hellfire. US will soon transition to JAGM with multi-mode seeker so ATGMs requiring laser for guidance is only decreasing at this rate.

Despite it's issues, distance based discretion still is one of the most credible way of discriminating ATGMs from AT rockets, simple due to maximum effective range of AT rockets, which usually aren't any longer than 200m and minimum launch distance of missiles.

Though I agree that some sort of machine-learnt sensor fusion algorithm could help the target recognition and discrimination problem. Also, as you've said, they could employ different operating modes that could be chosen manually based on operational environment (hard-kill only in urban environments or soft-kill priority in countryside.

Not all of them have newer ATGMs. It’s just an addition to other protection systems.
Maybe we can combine it with a laser system.
Still mostly useless, since it basically only works against SACLOS missiles using IR flares. It made sense for the Soviets which developed Shtora at the time, since their biggest adversaries used TOW, HOT and MILAN, which were all optically tracked SACLOS. Now they are decreasing in numbers. It might be helpful in Syria, where there are still a lot of SACLOS missiles in use, but why not just use hard-kill at this point. Even Russians are ditching Shtora.
 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
581
Reactions
34 2,587
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Very interesting design. Though as with other APS designs composed of soft-kill and hard-kill, I wonder how the system will decide what to use, since a soft-kill system interrupts RF and IR wave transmission, basically disrupting APS' own sensors. I think the most basic solution would be algorithm based on threat detection distance, but this is also not perfect. Also, soft-kill needs longer detection distance compared to hard-kill for early warning, so I wonder how Otokar is going to implement this. Korea for example simply went with two separate radars, one of which was L-band for long-distance early warning. Would Otokar also pursue two-radar system? Maybe newer generation AESA radars for APS have enough range and discretion resolution that they could be used for both the early warning for soft-kill as well as projectile tracking for hard-kill.

Anyways, thanks for introducting the interesting design.
long distance detection seems to be vital not only for soft kill but also against drones as well...in addition to hard kill for incoming projectiles, jamming, detection and a separate hard kill system against drones become a necesity. current AESAs of hard kill systems and 360 degree EO surveillance seems to be inadequate to detect and deal with all threats for now.
 
Last edited:

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
416
Reactions
22 1,279
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
long distance detection seems to be vital not only for soft kill but also against drones as well...in addition to hard kill for incoming projectiles, jamming, detection and a separate hard kill system against drones become a necesity. current AESAs of hard kill systems and 360 degree EO surveillance seems to be inadequate to detect and deal with all threats for now.
Yes, I guess for the interim, going dual band is the most reliable solution afterall, although it makes the whole system more bulky, more expensive and complicated. That's the price you pay to pack all that situational awareness to a damn tank.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,024
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,854
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yes, I guess for the interim, going dual band is the most reliable solution afterall, although it makes the whole system more bulky, more expensive and complicated. That's the price you pay to pack all that situational awareness to a damn tank.
Or, since tanks aren't supposed to operate alone after all, you specialise some UGVs as SHORAD and have them accompany tanks whenever they are on the field. Sort of like a mobile CIWS, it would be more expensive, but having a dedicated system for aerial threats against a tank could increase tanks survival rate.
 

Ravager

Contributor
Messages
1,036
Reactions
3 1,173
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Or, since tanks aren't supposed to operate alone after all, you specialise some UGVs as SHORAD and have them accompany tanks whenever they are on the field. Sort of like a mobile CIWS, it would be more expensive, but having a dedicated system for aerial threats against a tank could increase tanks survival rate.
It's hardly work against an enemy who could field a mass small kamikaze UAV swarm tactics tho' ...because that is the potential future enemy .
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,024
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,854
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
It's hardly work against an enemy who could field a mass small kamikaze UAV swarm tactics tho' ...because that is the potential future enemy .
It would most certainly work better than APS systems with limited hard kill capacity, not to mention you'd include some sort of soft kill capacity on it as well. It is pretty much a necessity for any modern SHORAD platform.
 

Ravager

Contributor
Messages
1,036
Reactions
3 1,173
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
It would most certainly work better than APS systems with limited hard kill capacity, not to mention you'd include some sort of soft kill capacity on it as well. It is pretty much a necessity for any modern SHORAD platform.


Until laser became portable and reliable enough . We all stuck in this scissor - rock - paper situation . Even if CIWS type of hard kill system were close enough comparison for an open warfare . Urban combat would only rendered them useless ...
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom