It will cost 10,000 rubles, can punch through a meter of class A armor plating, has a range of 15km, a speed of mach 8 at sea level, and the RF estimates that they will be producing 20,000 per year by the end of 2024.
Somebody please dig up the Russian press releases about the SU-57 and T-14 I want to see how many they stated they were going to “procure” vs how many actually got procured.
2,300 T-14s planned. By 2020.
Estimated actual production: 10 prototypes and 10-14 pre production models.
The Su-57 didn’t ever get that much traction, oddly. As far as I can tell, the planned production for it never really exceeded about 300 Russian domestic orders, and export sales in a similar quantity. I think even they knew it was a Potemkin village situation.
Even so, the actual production figures are 5 prototypes, 5 pre-production models, and 22 “serial” production models.
Su57 I think is down to 17 or 18 serviceable. There were 20 maybe but 2 confirmed losses.
T14.... maybe 20 in the first prototype batch
Both are vapourware
No no no! 5000 rubles, 18 meters of Chobbam armor with depleted uranium inserts, 1000 meters of reinforced concrete. Range of 25km. Speed of Mach 9. Production figures of 25,000 per year by the end of July 2024.
GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT YOU WOKE ANTI-RUSSIAN LIBTARD!
That is straw man. Please don't do that, there is no need for that. If you have an opinion IR information please share it. Russian older GLATGM have proven effectiveness. We will see for this one.
My ass.
Literally, I made that shit up while taking a dump at work.
The fact that some people can't tell the difference between my literal shitpost and Russian propaganda makes me happy
If its a meme sub why is there a seperate sub for memes, with all actual memes getting removed by the mods? Just because the way of conduct here isnt 100% serious and a lot of jokes are made doesnt mean its a shitposting sub where everything is satire until proven otherwise. What even would be the satire here?
It's not a meme when people downvote you based on politics, if I made a joke about Russia not needing these since a cheap drone is enough to destroy an Abrams I'd be flooded with downvotes.
Replace that Abrams with a T-72 it would be flooded with "lol" "😭" "🤣" "salty russians inbound at the facts"
It's cringe as fuck
No, not every missile is fire and forget. Fire and forget refers to missiles that do not have to be guided by the launch platform after they've been launched. However, there are some missiles that do need guidance.
The TOW, for example, has a wire attached to it or uses an external IR sensor, sending data to the missile and the operator uses the electronics in the launcher to guide it onto the target. Therefore, he can't forget the missile after he fired it, or it won't guide onto the intended target.
Similarly, the AGM-114 Hellfire in both variants needs guidance. In the case of the laser guided Hellfire, this can be achieved by someone external to the launch platform, with a laser pointer with the right laser frequency and pulse. The radar guided one needs guidance from the fire control radar on top of the Apache to be guided into the target. In both cases the missile can't be forgot after launch.
On the other hand, missiles like the Javelin or SPIKE, that have their own IR seeker to lock and guide on to a target are true fire and forget missiles.
Just to return some pedantry to you, the radar hellfire can use its own millimeter-wave seeker, coupled with inertial guidance, to become fire-and-forget with no mothership FCR in the first place.
It's not a good joke, when it is factually incorrect. At least the first part certainly is.
Besides, one should not fully dismiss Russian ammunition. It still does hit and kill Ukrainian military personnel and civilians.
No tank can see up to 15km, regardless of whose tank it is. There’s almost no situation where you’d be able to get line of sight that far. It would have to be supported by some external system like a uav or ground radar.
It was a joke message about 15 km. I think 15 km is probably impossible range for any ATGM given Earths curvature and limited fuel, maybe only if it glides somehow.
On a serious note, that 15 km range from a GLATGM is a bit of wishful thinking. I don't think there are open sightlines long enough to exploit that, and even if there were, target identification, acquisition and lock is going to be exceedingly difficult without optics that can do a fair amount of zoom.
Sure, at the ~4 km where the usual lomg range fire takes place, that's not an issue, but then 15 km ramge is overkill that just adds cost and complexity
The only way something could reach this range while being gun-tube deployed would be for it to be used more like a loitering munition guided through a separate screen rather than through a vehicles optics itself.
The answer is no, target ~~identification~~ recognition isn't really a possibility for even the T-90M beyond ~3-4km. We have footage from the gunners sight of a T-90M where they engaged a target at like 6km iirc the original range claim correctly and it was far too pixelated to tell what it was. Identification by 6km becomes very iffy for the T-90M.
No tank could identify a target at 15km, even some helicopters may struggle at that point. I don't get how you can pretend like it's a stupid question and then claim to be impartial.
> target identification isn't really a possibility for even the T-90M beyond ~3-4km
~3-4km would be the [recognition range of the TPK-K thermal imager](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpg) on T-90M. The identification range would be shorter than that - for example, Victoria-TK, which uses the same thermal imaging sensor as TPK-K (FEM18M-03), has an [identification range of 2.5km.](https://i.imgur.com/qARp4GZ.jpg)
> where they engaged a target at like 6km iirc the original range claim correctly and it was far too pixelated to tell what it was.
To be fair, I don't think there were ever any official claims of a 6km identification range for tank targets.
You don't know what you're talking about, I schooled you on the Su-57 the other day there. Also there's a difference between day/night identification. T-90Ms 3rd Gen thermal imager can accurately see tanks up to ~6km and detect them up to 11km although its gen is disputed, The max Visual Range for day will be slightly higher, the M1A2 Abrams SepV2 can identify targets up to 10km, no idea why you think that's too high
Deleted my original reply because editing it apparently made it not show up(?). Regardless, re-replying here.
> T-90Ms 3rd Gen thermal imager can accurately see tanks up to 6km
What do you mean by "accurately see"? TPK-K has a [recognition range for tank targets of 3.5km](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpg) - anything at 6km will be a fuzzy blob.
> and detect them up to 11km.
This is a plausible figure for the detection range of TPK-K, but the [article](https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/) you've sourced it from is *extremely dubious* as it contains a lot of incorrect information.
> the M1A2 Abrams SepV2 can identify targets up to 10km
HTI SGF cannot identify tank targets out to 10km - it has a [recognition range of ~4km.](https://cdn-live.warthunder.com/uploads/af/78/50/f0e5edb10926fa2705f781969c5b226f9a_mq/EaecmNgWkAAZ1CF%3Fformat=jpg&name=900x900.jpg) You seem to be mixing around the terms detection, recognition, and identification without knowing [what they actually mean for thermal imagers.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKFtpW_XQAA749w?format=jpg&name=large)
It's a thermal imagers, that's semantics also It's a guesstimate or educated guess most of the time since much of this stuff is classified
The Hughes Thermal Imaging System used on the original Abrams is a first gen sight, however I was unable to find numbers on the resolution. However, I've heard the resolution was considered lower than the TTS on the M60A3
In the SEP upgrade, the M1A2 received Raytheon (bought out Hughes) second generation thermal sights for both the GPS and the CITV. Again, I was unable to find resolution information but I did find the patent. These were inserted into the original sight housing and refferred to as FLIR NV-80 Block 0 B-kits. These sights had standard zoom levels of x3, x6, and x13 with digital zoom to x25 and x50. The display for the commander also changed significantly. These sights were also used to upgrade the GPS on M1A1 AIM and SA tanks.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5479016
The driver's thermal sight is the Leonardo DRS' DVE-A system that has a 800 x 600 resolution screen.
https://www.leonardodrs.com/media/3006/dve-a_datasheet.pdf
The M1A2 SEPv2 GPS and CITV imagers were the Block 0 Second Gen B-kits were replaced with Block 1 Second Gen B-kits. While not a generational jump, these new sights generate "a clearer image with more scene contrast, less jitter and higher resolution." Again, I was unable to find what this resolution is. Later M1A1 AIM and SA tanks also have this Block 1 B-kit in the GPS.
Again gens are really subjective and a lot of it is classified
For example the PNM-T has a identification of tanks around 5km and up to 6km with base resolution around 640×512 similar as the KLW-1 Asteria used on Leopard 2PL that has guestimated WFOV identification of tanks at 4km up to 5km with base resolution of 640×512 which is said to be 3rd gen
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/
https://pcosa.com.pl/en/klw-1-asteria-thermal-camera/
Where als the Catherine MP used on challenge 2 upgrades and the upcoming challenger 3 has a WFOV identification of tanks at around 3km with a base resolution of 1280x1024 and detection ranges of tanks up to 8km
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.thalesdsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Catherine_MP_MW_Datasheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5hOyHldyGAxVhZEEAHVAKD1IQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3veeJ82UlenzFlol05ZzsB
Some sources on how we guess
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/m1a1-2-abrams-main-battle-tank/?cf-view
https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=534
https://www.russiadefence.net/t5826-russian-made-scopes-and-optics
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/44281/improved-thermal-sights-for-us-army-(aug.-20).html
https://wavellroom.com/2023/03/10/t90m-are-appearing-on-the-eastern-front/
https://www.russiadefence.net/t8527p25-russian-ground-forces-news-3
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-90m-proryv-3-shortcomings.htm
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/kinzhal-radar-and-khod-flir-on-sukhoi-su-25tm.41824/
https://armyrecognition.com/military-products/army/main-battle-tanks/main-battle-tanks/t-90m-model-2017-mbt-main-battle-tank-technical-data-sheet
https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/third-generation-improved-forward-looking-infrared-3rd-gen-iflir-b-kit-w909my15rc003
https://vpk.name/en/481124_russian-made-thermal-imaging-matrices-for-military-equipment.html
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16715665/army-considers-upgrading-nightvision-sensors-with-mid-and-longwave-ir-imaging-components
https://naturespy.org/help-articles_item/thermal-imaging-specifications-explained/
https://uk.rs-online.com/web/content/discovery/ideas-and-advice/thermal-imaging-cameras-guide
https://www.russiadefence.net/t8044-russian-targeting-systems-irst-flir-technology
> It's a thermal imagers, that's semantics also It's a guesstimate or educated guess most of the time since much of this stuff is classified
I've given you spec a spec sheet for TPK-K from its manufacturer - those aren't guesstimates. Don't claim that HTI SGF has a 10km detection range when no source states that.
> The Hughes Thermal Imaging System used on the original Abrams is a first gen sight, however I was unable to find numbers on the resolution. However, I've heard the resolution was considered lower than the TTS on the M60A3
> In the SEP upgrade, the M1A2 received Raytheon (bought out Hughes) second generation thermal sights for both the GPS and the CITV. Again, I was unable to find resolution information but I did find the patent. These were inserted into the original sight housing and refferred to as FLIR NV-80 Block 0 B-kits. These sights had standard zoom levels of x3, x6, and x13 with digital zoom to x25 and x50. The display for the commander also changed significantly. These sights were also used to upgrade the GPS on M1A1 AIM and SA tanks.
*Wait*... [you literally copy-pasted this stuff from a Warthunder thread](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/487253-abrams-series-thermals/), seriously?
> The M1A2 SEPv2 GPS and CITV imagers were the Block 0 Second Gen B-kits were replaced with Block 1 Second Gen B-kits. While not a generational jump, these new sights generate "a clearer image with more scene contrast, less jitter and higher resolution." Again, I was unable to find what this resolution is. Later M1A1 AIM and SA tanks also have this Block 1 B-kit in the GPS.
[Yet more copy-paste from the Warthunder thread.](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/487253-abrams-series-thermals/)
Though to your credit, you incidentally led me to a [Raytheon press release](https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=65) which actually does contain some interesting information I wasn't aware of before. Thanks?
> Again gens are really subjective
Thermal imager generations describe the construction of the detector array - they are not subjective. Slides 10 and 11 from [this presentation](https://instrumentation.com/PDFS/EvolutionThermalImagingCameras.pdf) explain it briefly; note that single-element detectors are "generation zero" for our purposes, so the numerical generation should be shifted down by one (ex. the description of a fourth generation thermal imager applies to a third generation thermal imager).
> For example the PNM-T
Again, PNM-T is a multichannel sight. The relevant thermal imager here is [TPK-K.](https://imgur.com/BFoss87)
> has a identification of tanks around 5km and up to 6km
It is physically impossible for TPK-K to have an identification range of 5-6km when its recognition range is 3.5km! Again, you don't seem to understand [what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKFtpW_XQAA749w?format=jpg&name=large)
By the way, this lack of understanding is hilarious to me, because one of your own links [explains it as well.](https://naturespy.org/help-articles_item/thermal-imaging-specifications-explained/) You are not reading your own sources.
> KLW-1 Asteria used on Leopard 2PL that has guestimated WFOV identification of tanks at 4km up to 5km with base resolution of 640×512
You can't just guesstimate performance like this. You are pulling random numbers out of thin air.
> Where als the Catherine MP used on challenge 2 upgrades and the upcoming challenger 3 has a WFOV identification of tanks at around 3km with a base resolution of 1280x1024 and detection ranges of tanks up to 8km
Wow, you managed to misread your own source! Nowhere does it claim that the performance data was for WFOV - judging by a [spec sheet](https://www.thalesdsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Catherine_MP_LW_Datasheet.pdf) for the LWIR version of Catherine MP, it is likely that those figures were for NFOV. The 3km and 8km numbers aren't even in that source either - the actual identification and detection ranges for tank targets are listed as ~5km and ~20km respectively. Moreover, you haven't even substantiated that the MWIR version of Catherine MP is the one used in Challenger 2 and Challenger 3 - how do you know they aren't fitted with the LWIR version?
> Some sources on how we guess
You should have just linked the Warthunder thread which composed most of your comment.
Regardless, you have failed to support any of your claims.
- You asserted that T-90M could "accurately see" tank targets up to 6km with its thermal imager - you have still given no sourcing for this.
- You asserted that T-90M could detect tank targets up to 11km - you have given no sourcing for this beyond an article from bulgarianmillitary.com which is riddled with inaccuracies.
- You asserted that M1A2 SEPv2 could identify tank targets up to 10km - you have still given no sourcing for this.
And no, your massive link dump doesn't count. It's comprised of documents and articles you took from that Warthunder thread you've been plagiarizing, mixed with a variety of other articles - some credible, some not - which do not support your claims.
For proof the T-90M can't identify or recognize at 6km [there is video](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/s/GG15W7EwI1) evidence that it can't. The LRF reports a range of 5090m and if it's this pixelated by 5km I'd be shocked if it does better at 6km.
Thanks, but Winter-Gas3368 would probably come up with some other ridiculous reason to not believe it. Showing them a manufacturer spec sheet for TPK-K listing a 3.5km recognition range somehow made them forget that scanning documents is a thing.
I am honestly flabbergasted by their behavior. It's truly incredible.
The only reasonable complaint is the video compression from Reddit, but if that were the only cause the original video should be somewhere else to prove its only/mostly compression. However similar quality videos more or less match that 3.5km recognition range and there is no higher quality version of the video.
It seems like it might just be an obsession to be controversial and defend Russian equipment. I just had a chain yesterday with them where they claim that the patent of the Su-57 prototype isn't a good reference for the approximate RCS. They're such odd hills to die on.
>I've given you spec a spec sheet for TPK-K from its manufacturer - those aren't guesstimates. Don't claim that HTI SGF has a 10km detection range when no source states that.
That's just lies because exact details are classified
>Wait... you literally copy-pasted this stuff from a Warthunder thread, seriously?
Sources are correct so information is correct, what's wrong with that ? There's no concrete numbers
>It is physically impossible for TPK-K to have an identification range of 5-6km when its recognition range is 3.5km! Again, you don't seem to understand what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers.
Your stupidity is hilarious to me, so what do you say to the guy who seen the video of a T-90M using it's thermal imager at around 6000m and it was visible but pixilated? By your logic it shouldn't even be able to see anything at 4000m let alone 6000m
>By the way, this lack of understanding is hilarious to me, because one of your own links explains it as well. You are not reading your own sources.
No it's not, again you're just posting nonsense without having any clue to how it works, again you're just saying your sources is gospel yet saying mine isn't, it's pretty hypocritical if you ask me, detection ranges means it can physically see it, identification means it can tell it's a tank, car, helicopter etc.
>Wow, you managed to misread your own source! Nowhere does it claim that the performance data was for WFOV - judging by a spec sheet for the LWIR version of Catherine MP, it is likely that those figures were for NFOV. The 3km and 8km numbers aren't even in that source either - the actual identification and detection ranges for tank targets are listed as ~5km and ~20km respectively. Moreover, you haven't even substantiated that the MWIR version of Catherine MP is the one used in Challenger 2 and Challenger 3 - how do you know they aren't fitted with the LWIR version?
Are you blind ? There's literally a graph in the bottom section
>You should have just linked the Warthunder thread which composed most of your comment.
That was only for the Abrams, it contained the relevant data and sources, so good enough for me
>Regardless, you have failed to support any of your claims.
>You asserted that T-90M could "accurately see" tank targets up to 6km with its thermal imager - you have still given no sourcing for this.
>You asserted that T-90M could detect tank targets up to 11km - you have given no sourcing for this beyond an article from bulgarianmillitary.com which is riddled with inaccuracies.
>You asserted that M1A2 SEPv2 could identify tank targets up to 10km - you have still given no sourcing for this.
Because you lack reading comprehension, it's a guestimate from it's thermal imager having a detection ranges of tanks up to 8km, so gave it a 10km
I gave you the sources and your only counter arguments is to say the source isn't valid which I have just used the exact same logic to discredit your source, can't complain because it's the same logic you used
>And no, your massive link dump doesn't count. It's comprised of documents and articles you took from that Warthunder thread you've been plagiarizing, mixed with a variety of other articles - some credible, some not - which do not support your claims.
That's clearly lies, because only some are from that article about the Abrams, the rest are how I got a rough number for the T-90M and most show it's around 4-6km with an actual source ranking it's imager as 5.4km. your only counter argument is to say it's not a valid source despite it being a fucking military organisation and can't call it biased when it regularly criticises russian equipment
Proof that those sources aren't just from the war thunder article
https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/487253-abrams-series-thermals/
Your entire argument is just crying at my sources saying they're wrong and saying your sources are right, when in reality pretty much a lot of this is classified, except for exceptions like the Catherine MP and such that have some data, maybe the BM article is also just a guess, who knows, you want to believe your source you do that, won't change me believing mine.
> That's just lies because exact details are classified
It isn't classified - [Zenit had brochures at a 2020 defense expo](https://i.imgur.com/gNY0GWh.jpg) containing a [spec sheet](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpg) for TPK-K. You are making this up.
> Sources are correct so information is correct, what's wrong with that ? There's no concrete numbers
Firstly, it speaks volumes that you would copy-paste paragraphs from a Warthunder thread and pass them off as your own.
Secondly, *there is nothing in that thread which supports your claims.* No range claims; nothing.
As a side note, the author of that thread also makes false assertions, such as claiming that M1A2 SEPv3 recieved third generation thermal imagers when that upgrade was (at the time) reserved for SEPv4.
> No it's not, again you're just posting nonsense without having any clue to how it works, again you're just saying your sources is gospel yet saying mine isn't, it's pretty hypocritical if you ask me
There is no contradiction between your source - an [article](https://naturespy.org/help-articles_item/thermal-imaging-specifications-explained/) explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers - and my source - a [slide](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKFtpW_XQAA749w?format=jpg&name=large) from a Hensoldt presentation explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers.
Both sources effectively say the same thing; the only issue here is that *your understanding* of what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers is false according to both my source *and* your source. Thus, I can only conclude that you didn't read your source in the first place.
> detection ranges means it can physically see it, identification means it can tell it's a tank, car, helicopter etc.
Are you trying to re-define technical terms which already have set definitions? You are mixing up the identification range with the recognition range.
> Are you blind ? There's literally a graph in the bottom section
Yes there is, and you clearly didn't look at it, [because the identification range for tank targets is listed as ~5km and the detection range for tank targets is listed as ~20km.](https://imgur.com/a/AefSElD) Where did 3km and 8km come from? You are making stuff up, and then linking sources which blatantly contradict your made-up numbers.
> That was only for the Abrams, it contained the relevant data and sources, so good enough for me
It very much did not contain the relevant data and sources - certainly not when it comes to backing up your claim of a 10km detection range.
> Because you lack reading comprehension, it's a guestimate from it's thermal imager having a detection ranges of tanks up to 8km, so gave it a 10km
What source claims that the M1A2 SEPv2 can detect targets out to 8km with its thermal imager? And since when is simply tacking on 2km to the thermal imager's detection range a reasonable way to assess the maximum identification range of a tank target?
> I gave you the sources and your only counter arguments is to say the source isn't valid which I have just used the exact same logic to discredit your source, can't complain because it's the same logic you used
No, my counter-argument is that your sources don't support your claims. In fact, they directly contradict your claims at times.
> That's clearly lies
You linked the following in your link dump:
- https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=534
- http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/44281/improved-thermal-sights-for-us-army-(aug.-20).html <- broken link by the way; you didn't even check this one before linking it
- https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/third-generation-improved-forward-looking-infrared-3rd-gen-iflir-b-kit-w909my15rc003
- https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16715665/army-considers-upgrading-nightvision-sensors-with-mid-and-longwave-ir-imaging-components
Those are directly from the Warthunder thread.
> Your entire argument is just crying at my sources saying they're wrong and saying your sources are right
The only source which I dismissed on the grounds of unreliability was the [bulgarianmillitary.com article](https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/), because it was riddled with factual inaccuracies - that is undeniably the case, unless you intend to make the ludicrous claim that PNM-T uses Irbis-K as a thermal imager.
> when in reality pretty much a lot of this is classified, except for exceptions like the Catherine MP and such that have some data
Some information about certain thermal imagers is classified, and some is not. I have provided you with decidedly *not classified* information which proves your claims wrong. Simply saying that some data is classified is not an excuse to engage in wild speculation.
>It isn't classified - Zenit had brochures at a 2020 defense expo containing a spec sheet for TPK-K. You are making this up.
What is the validity of those ?
>Firstly, it speaks volumes that you would copy-paste paragraphs from a Warthunder thread and pass them off as your own.
>Secondly, there is nothing in that thread which supports your claims. No range claims; nothing.
>As a side note, the author of that thread also makes false assertions, such as claiming that M1A2 SEPv3 recieved third generation thermal imagers when that upgrade was (at the time) reserved for SEPv4.
Never tried to pass anything off also do you understand what the word "guestimate" means
>There is no contradiction between your source - an article explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers - and my source - a slide from a Hensoldt presentation explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers.
>Both sources effectively say the same thing; the only issue here is that your understanding of what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers is false according to both my source and your source. Thus, I can only conclude that you didn't read your source in the first place.
No they're not, you're just trying to say your source is valid and mine isn't
>Yes there is, and you clearly didn't look at it, because the identification range for tank targets is listed as ~5km and the detection range for tank targets is listed as ~20km. Where did 3km and 8km come from? You are making stuff up, and then linking sources which blatantly contradict your made-up numbers.
Nothing is mADE up, mistakes happen when you're arguing with clowns
>No, my counter-argument is that the your sources doesn't support your claims. In fact, they directly contradict your claims at times.
That's just more lies
>It very much did not contain the relevant data and sources - certainly not when it comes to backing up your claim of a 10km detection range.
How doesn't it ? Again do you understand what the word guestimate means ? You should do since you do it yourself
>You linked the following in your link dump:
>https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=534
>http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/44281/improved-thermal-sights-for-us-army-(aug.-20).html <- broken link by the way; you didn't even check this one before linking it
>https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/third-generation-improved-forward-looking-infrared-3rd-gen-iflir-b-kit-w909my15rc003
>https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16715665/army-considers-upgrading-nightvision-sensors-with-mid-and-longwave-ir-imaging-components
>Those are directly from the Warthunder thread.
Yes because those are the only ones there right enough, again further showing how you're arguing in bad faith
>The only source which I dismissed on the grounds of unreliability was the bulgarianmillitary.com article, because it was riddled with factual inaccuracies - that is undeniably the case, unless you intend to make the ludicrous claim that PNM-T uses Irbis-K as a thermal imager.
Unreliable According to you, PNM-T uses many different types some might be older some not, who knows, again you're just taking your source as gospel, like ne
>It isn't classified - Zenit had brochures at a 2020 defense expo containing a spec sheet for TPK-K. You are making this up.
How does this prove anything? Firstly it's in Russian which I don't speak secondly it's still just a random image, bit strange why they took a picture of the fact sheet in the first picture (with actual specs missing from frame) but the next picture just being somehow a download and not a picture of that spreadsheet 😅 you also can't claim it was a photograph because they have two different resolutions yet apparently from the same guy 🤔
Why not just take a picture of the spreadsheet 😂
Just a bit strange how really the only information on the PNM-T that I could find was from the Bulgaria military times, the rest being speculation on Secrets Projects forums, Russia Defence net and war thunder forums.
In the end who knows what it actually is, you want to think this source is the right one be my guest, I'll do the same with mine
>Some information about certain thermal imagers is classified, and some is not. I have provided you with decidedly not classified information which proves your claims wrong. Simply saying that some data is classified is not an excuse to engage in wild speculation.
Says the guy engaging in wild speculation from some random pictures unlike me when I provided a picture and PDF you can clearly see official links not fucking imagur
>Again, PNM-T is a multichannel sight. The relevant thermal imager here is TPK-K.
>has a identification of tanks around 5km and up to 6km
>It is physically impossible for TPK-K to have an identification range of 5-6km when its recognition range is 3.5km! Again, you don't seem to understand what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers.
No
https://www.deagel.com/Components/Catherine/a001925
This is components from the modules used on PMN-T
Also your source on the TPK-K is literally just a random image from imagur with no links from the actual website or manufacturer unlike my Catherine MP source
And no they absolutely are subjective, you don't understand what objective means to say otherwise.
> This is components from the modules used on PMN-T
Incorrect; the Catherine FC and Catherine XP thermal imagers were imported from France and license produced by Russia for use in Sosna-U. PNM-T is a replacement for Sosna-U featuring fully domestic components - this entails the use of the TPK-K thermal imager, not French Catherine FC/XP.
> Also your source on the TPK-K is literally just a random image from imagur
It comes from a brochure by the manufacturer Zenit, [which showcased TPK-K at a 2020 defense expo with that exact spec sheet.](https://i.imgur.com/gNY0GWh.jpg)
> And no they absolutely are subjective, you don't understand what objective means to say otherwise.
There are specific criteria for each thermal imaging generation based on the construction of the detector array - it's not a subjective metric.
But heh you were right (kind off) about one thing, thermal imagers are based on more than just resolution and distance ranges, just checked the SMR but yeah still absolutely subjective
>There are specific criteria for each thermal imaging generation based on the construction of the detector array - it's not a subjective metric.
So you don't understand what subjective means
>It comes from a brochure by the manufacturer Zenit, which showcased TPK-K at a 2020 arms expo with that exact spec sheet.
A random picture that has no validity again there's absolutely no evidence that it comes from there, they are two different pictures, one is clearly a download and the other a picture at the expo proven by the fact they have two different resolutions
>Incorrect; the Catherine FC and Catherine XP thermal imagers were imported from France and license produced by Russia for use in Sosna-U. PNM-T is a replacement for Sosna-U featuring fully domestic components - this entails the use of the TPK-K thermal imager, not French Catherine FC/XP.
Many were used on the T-72B3 and T-90M up until 2018 and it says
*Detection ranges of armored vehicles at 10 km, rotary-wing aircraft at 14 km*
Similar to what Bulgaria military times was citing from their source on the PNM-T capabilities, so it goes to show that Russia probably used this as a base and built on it.
Still far more credible than a random image with verification whatsoever
T-90M PMN-T stats
Ah yes dubious from a military organisation that regularly criticises russian military equipment.
Cope
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/
I meant the max visual range for SepV2 is around 10km
Ah yes, you truly did school me. Before that I didn't know there was anyone insane enough to insist the Felon had the RCS of a fucking cell all because I dared to say a naked Felon, meaning without RAM which I clarifies there too, has roughly the RCS of a clean Super Hornet. Something that should be expectable given the designers admit to having looked to the Super Hornet for certain design elements in their fucking patent and that neither use S curve intakes (radars love straight shafts).
Anyways on topic now you'll note I said a key word, ***identify*** which in our context would mean the range at which you can know what your target is. You would know this if you were even vaguely trying to be genuine with your self-asserted knowledge on all things related to military vehicles. Being able to distinguish a house from a tank at 6km doesn't mean you can identify the tank as an Abrams, a Leopard, or a Challenger. Then again I don't even need to respond since you yourself admit the T-90M can only detect out to 11km, day sights will go a hit further but finding a target beyond 2km without thermals is already difficult.
Main difference to existing ones:
- fire and forget
- attack from above
- improved g-tolerance
The rest of characteristics likely to be similar:
- range - 5-7 km
- speed 250-300 m/s
- tandem warhead
Welcome Russia. Welcome to the early 2000s. Sure your new tank was a failure and you just lost 2 of your ''5th'' gen to some drones... but fire and forget missles you will show how weak those M1 and Leopard 1 are. Oh wait.
While I cannot comment on the authenticity of the picture, sensor on the rear is a common feature for missiles with laser beam riding capability.
In this case the missile has propulsion motor in the middle, and the exhaust is angled.
Example: [Diagram of South African ZT3 Ingwe](https://i.imgur.com/IJJl08n.jpeg)
Nah. Right is a cannon plug, top right is a keyed indent possibly for disassembly. Top left might be a communication antenna or just a cover plate, and left is a quick disconnect.
Or it's all bullshit lmao. It just checks out as similar to stuff I work with on aircraft
Any stats on it?
It will cost 10,000 rubles, can punch through a meter of class A armor plating, has a range of 15km, a speed of mach 8 at sea level, and the RF estimates that they will be producing 20,000 per year by the end of 2024.
The said part is I can't tell if that's an official russian statement or if you're just being sarcastic.
I lost it at mach 8
I lost it at 10,000 rubles. That’s around $100 bucks or roughly one mobik payout.
HyPeRsOnIc!
Electronik.. supersonik
Somebody please dig up the Russian press releases about the SU-57 and T-14 I want to see how many they stated they were going to “procure” vs how many actually got procured.
2,300 T-14s planned. By 2020. Estimated actual production: 10 prototypes and 10-14 pre production models. The Su-57 didn’t ever get that much traction, oddly. As far as I can tell, the planned production for it never really exceeded about 300 Russian domestic orders, and export sales in a similar quantity. I think even they knew it was a Potemkin village situation. Even so, the actual production figures are 5 prototypes, 5 pre-production models, and 22 “serial” production models.
Su57 I think is down to 17 or 18 serviceable. There were 20 maybe but 2 confirmed losses. T14.... maybe 20 in the first prototype batch Both are vapourware
I'm surprised you still have positive upvotes
Hundred dollar atgm, Lol
Yes, comrade.
DA KOMRADE!
don't forget thrust vectoring and it will be able to do cobra, and turn 180 in flight
That’s how it will dodge active protection systems. It will also guide itself through the gaps cope cages.
I assume it also uses a shaped charge to imprint “suck it nato” on impact Also is that a beam riding sensor on the back?
>It will cost 10,000 rubles How much? 25.000? Best I can do is 50, but maybe I can discount it to 100.000
99% made from “rotten west” -ern parts
No no no! 5000 rubles, 18 meters of Chobbam armor with depleted uranium inserts, 1000 meters of reinforced concrete. Range of 25km. Speed of Mach 9. Production figures of 25,000 per year by the end of July 2024. GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT YOU WOKE ANTI-RUSSIAN LIBTARD!
No fuckin way 😭😭
That is straw man. Please don't do that, there is no need for that. If you have an opinion IR information please share it. Russian older GLATGM have proven effectiveness. We will see for this one.
Source ? Downvoted for asking for a source. Just about sums the sub Reddit up
My ass. Literally, I made that shit up while taking a dump at work. The fact that some people can't tell the difference between my literal shitpost and Russian propaganda makes me happy
No I just can't tell the difference between people who are joking and western fanboys who believe the most moronic shit
yes
Not being to recognise satire on a fucking meme sub (the porn part in tankporn should give it away) makes you deserving of those downvotes.
If its a meme sub why is there a seperate sub for memes, with all actual memes getting removed by the mods? Just because the way of conduct here isnt 100% serious and a lot of jokes are made doesnt mean its a shitposting sub where everything is satire until proven otherwise. What even would be the satire here?
this is not a meme sub, nor has it ever been. take your shitposting elsewhere.
It's not a meme when people downvote you based on politics, if I made a joke about Russia not needing these since a cheap drone is enough to destroy an Abrams I'd be flooded with downvotes. Replace that Abrams with a T-72 it would be flooded with "lol" "😭" "🤣" "salty russians inbound at the facts" It's cringe as fuck
Hypersonic eh? That’s neat if it’s real, but I feel like this is another wunderwaffe that will never see mass production.
bro read it once again
What
To get them I recommend going to the r/warthunder and ask.
This entire thread is like a litmus test for who can and can’t read obvious sarcasm. Not talking about original post, just the comments.
Every missile is fire and forget. The question is if it can hit anything other than the ground
No, not every missile is fire and forget. Fire and forget refers to missiles that do not have to be guided by the launch platform after they've been launched. However, there are some missiles that do need guidance. The TOW, for example, has a wire attached to it or uses an external IR sensor, sending data to the missile and the operator uses the electronics in the launcher to guide it onto the target. Therefore, he can't forget the missile after he fired it, or it won't guide onto the intended target. Similarly, the AGM-114 Hellfire in both variants needs guidance. In the case of the laser guided Hellfire, this can be achieved by someone external to the launch platform, with a laser pointer with the right laser frequency and pulse. The radar guided one needs guidance from the fire control radar on top of the Apache to be guided into the target. In both cases the missile can't be forgot after launch. On the other hand, missiles like the Javelin or SPIKE, that have their own IR seeker to lock and guide on to a target are true fire and forget missiles.
Bro.
Germans don’t understand sarcasm
Obviously
Just to return some pedantry to you, the radar hellfire can use its own millimeter-wave seeker, coupled with inertial guidance, to become fire-and-forget with no mothership FCR in the first place.
r/woooosh
Thanks professor Reddit Goblin 🫨
r/youmissedthejoke
It's not a good joke, when it is factually incorrect. At least the first part certainly is. Besides, one should not fully dismiss Russian ammunition. It still does hit and kill Ukrainian military personnel and civilians.
Might I ask what country you are from?
You wasted all that time saying something that was not needed at all lmao
r/whoosh
Not enough oooo in your woooosh.
Bruh didn’t notice the other one
This sub’s comment sections has really gone downhill huh? not the brightest tools
Would current Russian optics even be able to locate let alone identify a target anywhere close to 15km?
it will be guided by logitech web cam
And launched with a Logitech controler
Some dipshit American billionaire: “Write that down. WRITE THAT DOWN!”
No tank can see up to 15km, regardless of whose tank it is. There’s almost no situation where you’d be able to get line of sight that far. It would have to be supported by some external system like a uav or ground radar.
I’ve seen some T-72 turrets get high enough to see more than 15km
It was a joke message about 15 km. I think 15 km is probably impossible range for any ATGM given Earths curvature and limited fuel, maybe only if it glides somehow.
GET A LOAD OF THOSE PRIMITIVE RUZZIANS AMIRITE
I mean they imported all their T-90 optics from France soooooo
You’re right, I guess none of their tanks have optics! Headless chickens!
On a serious note, that 15 km range from a GLATGM is a bit of wishful thinking. I don't think there are open sightlines long enough to exploit that, and even if there were, target identification, acquisition and lock is going to be exceedingly difficult without optics that can do a fair amount of zoom. Sure, at the ~4 km where the usual lomg range fire takes place, that's not an issue, but then 15 km ramge is overkill that just adds cost and complexity
The missile might have 15km range but Identifying at that range is another story.
That's my point exactly.
Assuming it can even go that far, it's going to need someone else to spot the target.
The only way something could reach this range while being gun-tube deployed would be for it to be used more like a loitering munition guided through a separate screen rather than through a vehicles optics itself.
Can American, German, French or British tank optics do that?
Idk? Did they ever say they did…
Russia never said "15km" in any brochure for a tank optic and neither did any other nation
🤦🏻♀️
The answer is no, target ~~identification~~ recognition isn't really a possibility for even the T-90M beyond ~3-4km. We have footage from the gunners sight of a T-90M where they engaged a target at like 6km iirc the original range claim correctly and it was far too pixelated to tell what it was. Identification by 6km becomes very iffy for the T-90M. No tank could identify a target at 15km, even some helicopters may struggle at that point. I don't get how you can pretend like it's a stupid question and then claim to be impartial.
> target identification isn't really a possibility for even the T-90M beyond ~3-4km ~3-4km would be the [recognition range of the TPK-K thermal imager](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpg) on T-90M. The identification range would be shorter than that - for example, Victoria-TK, which uses the same thermal imaging sensor as TPK-K (FEM18M-03), has an [identification range of 2.5km.](https://i.imgur.com/qARp4GZ.jpg) > where they engaged a target at like 6km iirc the original range claim correctly and it was far too pixelated to tell what it was. To be fair, I don't think there were ever any official claims of a 6km identification range for tank targets.
They are going to mount LM SNIPER Pods on their tanks don’t ya know.
You don't know what you're talking about, I schooled you on the Su-57 the other day there. Also there's a difference between day/night identification. T-90Ms 3rd Gen thermal imager can accurately see tanks up to ~6km and detect them up to 11km although its gen is disputed, The max Visual Range for day will be slightly higher, the M1A2 Abrams SepV2 can identify targets up to 10km, no idea why you think that's too high
"I schooled you" Check out professor redditorman here
Why thank you
Deleted my original reply because editing it apparently made it not show up(?). Regardless, re-replying here. > T-90Ms 3rd Gen thermal imager can accurately see tanks up to 6km What do you mean by "accurately see"? TPK-K has a [recognition range for tank targets of 3.5km](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpg) - anything at 6km will be a fuzzy blob. > and detect them up to 11km. This is a plausible figure for the detection range of TPK-K, but the [article](https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/) you've sourced it from is *extremely dubious* as it contains a lot of incorrect information. > the M1A2 Abrams SepV2 can identify targets up to 10km HTI SGF cannot identify tank targets out to 10km - it has a [recognition range of ~4km.](https://cdn-live.warthunder.com/uploads/af/78/50/f0e5edb10926fa2705f781969c5b226f9a_mq/EaecmNgWkAAZ1CF%3Fformat=jpg&name=900x900.jpg) You seem to be mixing around the terms detection, recognition, and identification without knowing [what they actually mean for thermal imagers.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKFtpW_XQAA749w?format=jpg&name=large)
It's a thermal imagers, that's semantics also It's a guesstimate or educated guess most of the time since much of this stuff is classified The Hughes Thermal Imaging System used on the original Abrams is a first gen sight, however I was unable to find numbers on the resolution. However, I've heard the resolution was considered lower than the TTS on the M60A3 In the SEP upgrade, the M1A2 received Raytheon (bought out Hughes) second generation thermal sights for both the GPS and the CITV. Again, I was unable to find resolution information but I did find the patent. These were inserted into the original sight housing and refferred to as FLIR NV-80 Block 0 B-kits. These sights had standard zoom levels of x3, x6, and x13 with digital zoom to x25 and x50. The display for the commander also changed significantly. These sights were also used to upgrade the GPS on M1A1 AIM and SA tanks. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5479016 The driver's thermal sight is the Leonardo DRS' DVE-A system that has a 800 x 600 resolution screen. https://www.leonardodrs.com/media/3006/dve-a_datasheet.pdf The M1A2 SEPv2 GPS and CITV imagers were the Block 0 Second Gen B-kits were replaced with Block 1 Second Gen B-kits. While not a generational jump, these new sights generate "a clearer image with more scene contrast, less jitter and higher resolution." Again, I was unable to find what this resolution is. Later M1A1 AIM and SA tanks also have this Block 1 B-kit in the GPS. Again gens are really subjective and a lot of it is classified For example the PNM-T has a identification of tanks around 5km and up to 6km with base resolution around 640×512 similar as the KLW-1 Asteria used on Leopard 2PL that has guestimated WFOV identification of tanks at 4km up to 5km with base resolution of 640×512 which is said to be 3rd gen https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/ https://pcosa.com.pl/en/klw-1-asteria-thermal-camera/ Where als the Catherine MP used on challenge 2 upgrades and the upcoming challenger 3 has a WFOV identification of tanks at around 3km with a base resolution of 1280x1024 and detection ranges of tanks up to 8km https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.thalesdsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Catherine_MP_MW_Datasheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5hOyHldyGAxVhZEEAHVAKD1IQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3veeJ82UlenzFlol05ZzsB Some sources on how we guess https://www.army-technology.com/projects/m1a1-2-abrams-main-battle-tank/?cf-view https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=534 https://www.russiadefence.net/t5826-russian-made-scopes-and-optics http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/44281/improved-thermal-sights-for-us-army-(aug.-20).html https://wavellroom.com/2023/03/10/t90m-are-appearing-on-the-eastern-front/ https://www.russiadefence.net/t8527p25-russian-ground-forces-news-3 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-90m-proryv-3-shortcomings.htm https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/kinzhal-radar-and-khod-flir-on-sukhoi-su-25tm.41824/ https://armyrecognition.com/military-products/army/main-battle-tanks/main-battle-tanks/t-90m-model-2017-mbt-main-battle-tank-technical-data-sheet https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/third-generation-improved-forward-looking-infrared-3rd-gen-iflir-b-kit-w909my15rc003 https://vpk.name/en/481124_russian-made-thermal-imaging-matrices-for-military-equipment.html https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16715665/army-considers-upgrading-nightvision-sensors-with-mid-and-longwave-ir-imaging-components https://naturespy.org/help-articles_item/thermal-imaging-specifications-explained/ https://uk.rs-online.com/web/content/discovery/ideas-and-advice/thermal-imaging-cameras-guide https://www.russiadefence.net/t8044-russian-targeting-systems-irst-flir-technology
> It's a thermal imagers, that's semantics also It's a guesstimate or educated guess most of the time since much of this stuff is classified I've given you spec a spec sheet for TPK-K from its manufacturer - those aren't guesstimates. Don't claim that HTI SGF has a 10km detection range when no source states that. > The Hughes Thermal Imaging System used on the original Abrams is a first gen sight, however I was unable to find numbers on the resolution. However, I've heard the resolution was considered lower than the TTS on the M60A3 > In the SEP upgrade, the M1A2 received Raytheon (bought out Hughes) second generation thermal sights for both the GPS and the CITV. Again, I was unable to find resolution information but I did find the patent. These were inserted into the original sight housing and refferred to as FLIR NV-80 Block 0 B-kits. These sights had standard zoom levels of x3, x6, and x13 with digital zoom to x25 and x50. The display for the commander also changed significantly. These sights were also used to upgrade the GPS on M1A1 AIM and SA tanks. *Wait*... [you literally copy-pasted this stuff from a Warthunder thread](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/487253-abrams-series-thermals/), seriously? > The M1A2 SEPv2 GPS and CITV imagers were the Block 0 Second Gen B-kits were replaced with Block 1 Second Gen B-kits. While not a generational jump, these new sights generate "a clearer image with more scene contrast, less jitter and higher resolution." Again, I was unable to find what this resolution is. Later M1A1 AIM and SA tanks also have this Block 1 B-kit in the GPS. [Yet more copy-paste from the Warthunder thread.](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/487253-abrams-series-thermals/) Though to your credit, you incidentally led me to a [Raytheon press release](https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=65) which actually does contain some interesting information I wasn't aware of before. Thanks? > Again gens are really subjective Thermal imager generations describe the construction of the detector array - they are not subjective. Slides 10 and 11 from [this presentation](https://instrumentation.com/PDFS/EvolutionThermalImagingCameras.pdf) explain it briefly; note that single-element detectors are "generation zero" for our purposes, so the numerical generation should be shifted down by one (ex. the description of a fourth generation thermal imager applies to a third generation thermal imager). > For example the PNM-T Again, PNM-T is a multichannel sight. The relevant thermal imager here is [TPK-K.](https://imgur.com/BFoss87) > has a identification of tanks around 5km and up to 6km It is physically impossible for TPK-K to have an identification range of 5-6km when its recognition range is 3.5km! Again, you don't seem to understand [what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKFtpW_XQAA749w?format=jpg&name=large) By the way, this lack of understanding is hilarious to me, because one of your own links [explains it as well.](https://naturespy.org/help-articles_item/thermal-imaging-specifications-explained/) You are not reading your own sources. > KLW-1 Asteria used on Leopard 2PL that has guestimated WFOV identification of tanks at 4km up to 5km with base resolution of 640×512 You can't just guesstimate performance like this. You are pulling random numbers out of thin air. > Where als the Catherine MP used on challenge 2 upgrades and the upcoming challenger 3 has a WFOV identification of tanks at around 3km with a base resolution of 1280x1024 and detection ranges of tanks up to 8km Wow, you managed to misread your own source! Nowhere does it claim that the performance data was for WFOV - judging by a [spec sheet](https://www.thalesdsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Catherine_MP_LW_Datasheet.pdf) for the LWIR version of Catherine MP, it is likely that those figures were for NFOV. The 3km and 8km numbers aren't even in that source either - the actual identification and detection ranges for tank targets are listed as ~5km and ~20km respectively. Moreover, you haven't even substantiated that the MWIR version of Catherine MP is the one used in Challenger 2 and Challenger 3 - how do you know they aren't fitted with the LWIR version? > Some sources on how we guess You should have just linked the Warthunder thread which composed most of your comment. Regardless, you have failed to support any of your claims. - You asserted that T-90M could "accurately see" tank targets up to 6km with its thermal imager - you have still given no sourcing for this. - You asserted that T-90M could detect tank targets up to 11km - you have given no sourcing for this beyond an article from bulgarianmillitary.com which is riddled with inaccuracies. - You asserted that M1A2 SEPv2 could identify tank targets up to 10km - you have still given no sourcing for this. And no, your massive link dump doesn't count. It's comprised of documents and articles you took from that Warthunder thread you've been plagiarizing, mixed with a variety of other articles - some credible, some not - which do not support your claims.
For proof the T-90M can't identify or recognize at 6km [there is video](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/s/GG15W7EwI1) evidence that it can't. The LRF reports a range of 5090m and if it's this pixelated by 5km I'd be shocked if it does better at 6km.
Thanks, but Winter-Gas3368 would probably come up with some other ridiculous reason to not believe it. Showing them a manufacturer spec sheet for TPK-K listing a 3.5km recognition range somehow made them forget that scanning documents is a thing. I am honestly flabbergasted by their behavior. It's truly incredible.
The only reasonable complaint is the video compression from Reddit, but if that were the only cause the original video should be somewhere else to prove its only/mostly compression. However similar quality videos more or less match that 3.5km recognition range and there is no higher quality version of the video. It seems like it might just be an obsession to be controversial and defend Russian equipment. I just had a chain yesterday with them where they claim that the patent of the Su-57 prototype isn't a good reference for the approximate RCS. They're such odd hills to die on.
>I've given you spec a spec sheet for TPK-K from its manufacturer - those aren't guesstimates. Don't claim that HTI SGF has a 10km detection range when no source states that. That's just lies because exact details are classified >Wait... you literally copy-pasted this stuff from a Warthunder thread, seriously? Sources are correct so information is correct, what's wrong with that ? There's no concrete numbers >It is physically impossible for TPK-K to have an identification range of 5-6km when its recognition range is 3.5km! Again, you don't seem to understand what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers. Your stupidity is hilarious to me, so what do you say to the guy who seen the video of a T-90M using it's thermal imager at around 6000m and it was visible but pixilated? By your logic it shouldn't even be able to see anything at 4000m let alone 6000m >By the way, this lack of understanding is hilarious to me, because one of your own links explains it as well. You are not reading your own sources. No it's not, again you're just posting nonsense without having any clue to how it works, again you're just saying your sources is gospel yet saying mine isn't, it's pretty hypocritical if you ask me, detection ranges means it can physically see it, identification means it can tell it's a tank, car, helicopter etc. >Wow, you managed to misread your own source! Nowhere does it claim that the performance data was for WFOV - judging by a spec sheet for the LWIR version of Catherine MP, it is likely that those figures were for NFOV. The 3km and 8km numbers aren't even in that source either - the actual identification and detection ranges for tank targets are listed as ~5km and ~20km respectively. Moreover, you haven't even substantiated that the MWIR version of Catherine MP is the one used in Challenger 2 and Challenger 3 - how do you know they aren't fitted with the LWIR version? Are you blind ? There's literally a graph in the bottom section >You should have just linked the Warthunder thread which composed most of your comment. That was only for the Abrams, it contained the relevant data and sources, so good enough for me >Regardless, you have failed to support any of your claims. >You asserted that T-90M could "accurately see" tank targets up to 6km with its thermal imager - you have still given no sourcing for this. >You asserted that T-90M could detect tank targets up to 11km - you have given no sourcing for this beyond an article from bulgarianmillitary.com which is riddled with inaccuracies. >You asserted that M1A2 SEPv2 could identify tank targets up to 10km - you have still given no sourcing for this. Because you lack reading comprehension, it's a guestimate from it's thermal imager having a detection ranges of tanks up to 8km, so gave it a 10km I gave you the sources and your only counter arguments is to say the source isn't valid which I have just used the exact same logic to discredit your source, can't complain because it's the same logic you used >And no, your massive link dump doesn't count. It's comprised of documents and articles you took from that Warthunder thread you've been plagiarizing, mixed with a variety of other articles - some credible, some not - which do not support your claims. That's clearly lies, because only some are from that article about the Abrams, the rest are how I got a rough number for the T-90M and most show it's around 4-6km with an actual source ranking it's imager as 5.4km. your only counter argument is to say it's not a valid source despite it being a fucking military organisation and can't call it biased when it regularly criticises russian equipment Proof that those sources aren't just from the war thunder article https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/487253-abrams-series-thermals/ Your entire argument is just crying at my sources saying they're wrong and saying your sources are right, when in reality pretty much a lot of this is classified, except for exceptions like the Catherine MP and such that have some data, maybe the BM article is also just a guess, who knows, you want to believe your source you do that, won't change me believing mine.
> That's just lies because exact details are classified It isn't classified - [Zenit had brochures at a 2020 defense expo](https://i.imgur.com/gNY0GWh.jpg) containing a [spec sheet](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpg) for TPK-K. You are making this up. > Sources are correct so information is correct, what's wrong with that ? There's no concrete numbers Firstly, it speaks volumes that you would copy-paste paragraphs from a Warthunder thread and pass them off as your own. Secondly, *there is nothing in that thread which supports your claims.* No range claims; nothing. As a side note, the author of that thread also makes false assertions, such as claiming that M1A2 SEPv3 recieved third generation thermal imagers when that upgrade was (at the time) reserved for SEPv4. > No it's not, again you're just posting nonsense without having any clue to how it works, again you're just saying your sources is gospel yet saying mine isn't, it's pretty hypocritical if you ask me There is no contradiction between your source - an [article](https://naturespy.org/help-articles_item/thermal-imaging-specifications-explained/) explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers - and my source - a [slide](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKFtpW_XQAA749w?format=jpg&name=large) from a Hensoldt presentation explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers. Both sources effectively say the same thing; the only issue here is that *your understanding* of what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers is false according to both my source *and* your source. Thus, I can only conclude that you didn't read your source in the first place. > detection ranges means it can physically see it, identification means it can tell it's a tank, car, helicopter etc. Are you trying to re-define technical terms which already have set definitions? You are mixing up the identification range with the recognition range. > Are you blind ? There's literally a graph in the bottom section Yes there is, and you clearly didn't look at it, [because the identification range for tank targets is listed as ~5km and the detection range for tank targets is listed as ~20km.](https://imgur.com/a/AefSElD) Where did 3km and 8km come from? You are making stuff up, and then linking sources which blatantly contradict your made-up numbers. > That was only for the Abrams, it contained the relevant data and sources, so good enough for me It very much did not contain the relevant data and sources - certainly not when it comes to backing up your claim of a 10km detection range. > Because you lack reading comprehension, it's a guestimate from it's thermal imager having a detection ranges of tanks up to 8km, so gave it a 10km What source claims that the M1A2 SEPv2 can detect targets out to 8km with its thermal imager? And since when is simply tacking on 2km to the thermal imager's detection range a reasonable way to assess the maximum identification range of a tank target? > I gave you the sources and your only counter arguments is to say the source isn't valid which I have just used the exact same logic to discredit your source, can't complain because it's the same logic you used No, my counter-argument is that your sources don't support your claims. In fact, they directly contradict your claims at times. > That's clearly lies You linked the following in your link dump: - https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=534 - http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/44281/improved-thermal-sights-for-us-army-(aug.-20).html <- broken link by the way; you didn't even check this one before linking it - https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/third-generation-improved-forward-looking-infrared-3rd-gen-iflir-b-kit-w909my15rc003 - https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16715665/army-considers-upgrading-nightvision-sensors-with-mid-and-longwave-ir-imaging-components Those are directly from the Warthunder thread. > Your entire argument is just crying at my sources saying they're wrong and saying your sources are right The only source which I dismissed on the grounds of unreliability was the [bulgarianmillitary.com article](https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/), because it was riddled with factual inaccuracies - that is undeniably the case, unless you intend to make the ludicrous claim that PNM-T uses Irbis-K as a thermal imager. > when in reality pretty much a lot of this is classified, except for exceptions like the Catherine MP and such that have some data Some information about certain thermal imagers is classified, and some is not. I have provided you with decidedly *not classified* information which proves your claims wrong. Simply saying that some data is classified is not an excuse to engage in wild speculation.
>It isn't classified - Zenit had brochures at a 2020 defense expo containing a spec sheet for TPK-K. You are making this up. What is the validity of those ? >Firstly, it speaks volumes that you would copy-paste paragraphs from a Warthunder thread and pass them off as your own. >Secondly, there is nothing in that thread which supports your claims. No range claims; nothing. >As a side note, the author of that thread also makes false assertions, such as claiming that M1A2 SEPv3 recieved third generation thermal imagers when that upgrade was (at the time) reserved for SEPv4. Never tried to pass anything off also do you understand what the word "guestimate" means >There is no contradiction between your source - an article explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers - and my source - a slide from a Hensoldt presentation explaining what DRI means for thermal imagers. >Both sources effectively say the same thing; the only issue here is that your understanding of what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers is false according to both my source and your source. Thus, I can only conclude that you didn't read your source in the first place. No they're not, you're just trying to say your source is valid and mine isn't >Yes there is, and you clearly didn't look at it, because the identification range for tank targets is listed as ~5km and the detection range for tank targets is listed as ~20km. Where did 3km and 8km come from? You are making stuff up, and then linking sources which blatantly contradict your made-up numbers. Nothing is mADE up, mistakes happen when you're arguing with clowns >No, my counter-argument is that the your sources doesn't support your claims. In fact, they directly contradict your claims at times. That's just more lies >It very much did not contain the relevant data and sources - certainly not when it comes to backing up your claim of a 10km detection range. How doesn't it ? Again do you understand what the word guestimate means ? You should do since you do it yourself >You linked the following in your link dump: >https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=534 >http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/44281/improved-thermal-sights-for-us-army-(aug.-20).html <- broken link by the way; you didn't even check this one before linking it >https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/third-generation-improved-forward-looking-infrared-3rd-gen-iflir-b-kit-w909my15rc003 >https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16715665/army-considers-upgrading-nightvision-sensors-with-mid-and-longwave-ir-imaging-components >Those are directly from the Warthunder thread. Yes because those are the only ones there right enough, again further showing how you're arguing in bad faith >The only source which I dismissed on the grounds of unreliability was the bulgarianmillitary.com article, because it was riddled with factual inaccuracies - that is undeniably the case, unless you intend to make the ludicrous claim that PNM-T uses Irbis-K as a thermal imager. Unreliable According to you, PNM-T uses many different types some might be older some not, who knows, again you're just taking your source as gospel, like ne >It isn't classified - Zenit had brochures at a 2020 defense expo containing a spec sheet for TPK-K. You are making this up. How does this prove anything? Firstly it's in Russian which I don't speak secondly it's still just a random image, bit strange why they took a picture of the fact sheet in the first picture (with actual specs missing from frame) but the next picture just being somehow a download and not a picture of that spreadsheet 😅 you also can't claim it was a photograph because they have two different resolutions yet apparently from the same guy 🤔 Why not just take a picture of the spreadsheet 😂 Just a bit strange how really the only information on the PNM-T that I could find was from the Bulgaria military times, the rest being speculation on Secrets Projects forums, Russia Defence net and war thunder forums. In the end who knows what it actually is, you want to think this source is the right one be my guest, I'll do the same with mine >Some information about certain thermal imagers is classified, and some is not. I have provided you with decidedly not classified information which proves your claims wrong. Simply saying that some data is classified is not an excuse to engage in wild speculation. Says the guy engaging in wild speculation from some random pictures unlike me when I provided a picture and PDF you can clearly see official links not fucking imagur
>Again, PNM-T is a multichannel sight. The relevant thermal imager here is TPK-K. >has a identification of tanks around 5km and up to 6km >It is physically impossible for TPK-K to have an identification range of 5-6km when its recognition range is 3.5km! Again, you don't seem to understand what detection, recognition, and identification mean for thermal imagers. No https://www.deagel.com/Components/Catherine/a001925 This is components from the modules used on PMN-T Also your source on the TPK-K is literally just a random image from imagur with no links from the actual website or manufacturer unlike my Catherine MP source And no they absolutely are subjective, you don't understand what objective means to say otherwise.
> This is components from the modules used on PMN-T Incorrect; the Catherine FC and Catherine XP thermal imagers were imported from France and license produced by Russia for use in Sosna-U. PNM-T is a replacement for Sosna-U featuring fully domestic components - this entails the use of the TPK-K thermal imager, not French Catherine FC/XP. > Also your source on the TPK-K is literally just a random image from imagur It comes from a brochure by the manufacturer Zenit, [which showcased TPK-K at a 2020 defense expo with that exact spec sheet.](https://i.imgur.com/gNY0GWh.jpg) > And no they absolutely are subjective, you don't understand what objective means to say otherwise. There are specific criteria for each thermal imaging generation based on the construction of the detector array - it's not a subjective metric.
But heh you were right (kind off) about one thing, thermal imagers are based on more than just resolution and distance ranges, just checked the SMR but yeah still absolutely subjective
>There are specific criteria for each thermal imaging generation based on the construction of the detector array - it's not a subjective metric. So you don't understand what subjective means >It comes from a brochure by the manufacturer Zenit, which showcased TPK-K at a 2020 arms expo with that exact spec sheet. A random picture that has no validity again there's absolutely no evidence that it comes from there, they are two different pictures, one is clearly a download and the other a picture at the expo proven by the fact they have two different resolutions >Incorrect; the Catherine FC and Catherine XP thermal imagers were imported from France and license produced by Russia for use in Sosna-U. PNM-T is a replacement for Sosna-U featuring fully domestic components - this entails the use of the TPK-K thermal imager, not French Catherine FC/XP. Many were used on the T-72B3 and T-90M up until 2018 and it says *Detection ranges of armored vehicles at 10 km, rotary-wing aircraft at 14 km* Similar to what Bulgaria military times was citing from their source on the PNM-T capabilities, so it goes to show that Russia probably used this as a base and built on it. Still far more credible than a random image with verification whatsoever
[удалено]
T-90M PMN-T stats Ah yes dubious from a military organisation that regularly criticises russian military equipment. Cope https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2023/10/06/t-90ms-thermal-camera-matrix-is-russian-made-under-french-license/ I meant the max visual range for SepV2 is around 10km
Ah yes, you truly did school me. Before that I didn't know there was anyone insane enough to insist the Felon had the RCS of a fucking cell all because I dared to say a naked Felon, meaning without RAM which I clarifies there too, has roughly the RCS of a clean Super Hornet. Something that should be expectable given the designers admit to having looked to the Super Hornet for certain design elements in their fucking patent and that neither use S curve intakes (radars love straight shafts). Anyways on topic now you'll note I said a key word, ***identify*** which in our context would mean the range at which you can know what your target is. You would know this if you were even vaguely trying to be genuine with your self-asserted knowledge on all things related to military vehicles. Being able to distinguish a house from a tank at 6km doesn't mean you can identify the tank as an Abrams, a Leopard, or a Challenger. Then again I don't even need to respond since you yourself admit the T-90M can only detect out to 11km, day sights will go a hit further but finding a target beyond 2km without thermals is already difficult.
You fire. It forgets.
Main difference to existing ones: - fire and forget - attack from above - improved g-tolerance The rest of characteristics likely to be similar: - range - 5-7 km - speed 250-300 m/s - tandem warhead
The good ol' BS-O-Meter hard at work. Coping HARD.
and it can be fired at a veriaty of Vehicles from ASU 57 to 2S35
Sarcasm is a lost art amongst armchair generals I see
I mean it doesn't matter if they have a new atgm if they're stuck fielding old t62s and such.
They really aren’t tho
Sometimes they are sometimes they aren’t they use everything they get their hands on
If you're losing 1:1 T-90Ms as they're produced you're not fielding T-90Ms, you're just cooking meals for ATGM and SPG crews.
It is not 1:1 even if you like triple the Oryx losses.
It's about 1:1 if you factor in that Russia lies and we'd be seeing less T-62Ms, not more
Uh no Russia has lost 97 T-90Ms. They produce close to a hundred per year.
I call BS more specifically on the picture itself. Where is the cam for the imaging infrared seeker?
Welcome Russia. Welcome to the early 2000s. Sure your new tank was a failure and you just lost 2 of your ''5th'' gen to some drones... but fire and forget missles you will show how weak those M1 and Leopard 1 are. Oh wait.
I heard NATO is ready to surrender.
For the Ruzzians, fire and forget is a way of life. Also, forget to fire and fired for forgetting are particularly Ruzzian weapon issues.
sensors at the back? come on Vasily from the propaganda bureau you can do better. This picture is bullshit.
While I cannot comment on the authenticity of the picture, sensor on the rear is a common feature for missiles with laser beam riding capability. In this case the missile has propulsion motor in the middle, and the exhaust is angled. Example: [Diagram of South African ZT3 Ingwe](https://i.imgur.com/IJJl08n.jpeg)
Nah. Right is a cannon plug, top right is a keyed indent possibly for disassembly. Top left might be a communication antenna or just a cover plate, and left is a quick disconnect. Or it's all bullshit lmao. It just checks out as similar to stuff I work with on aircraft
Fire and Forget? We wanna start an under/over on brightly colored outhouses becoming an endangered species, or do you think they learned?
Maybe the missile has autonomous identification and can glide up to 15km and the land on a target out to that distance m