Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some silly idea that it's just a numbers game and 20 Cessna 172s would be able to take out an F-35.
How many AA missiles does an F-35 hold, 10? 20 Cessnas would certainly be able to take down a lone F-35 in favourable conditions. Quantity has a quality of it's own.
The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
171–180 of 282 posts
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#172It will be interesting times if all those weapons spill into the European Union.
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usefulness of long range missiles depends on the rules of engagement. If the F-35 will be allowed to shoot targets over the horizon based only on instruments, it will most probably work as intended. If visual confirmation will be required, it will be a boondoggle.
Could you expand on this? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where visual confirmation of a target would be a requirement. I also don't see why an F-35 is at a major disadvantage inside visual range of a target. (FYI Visual range is farther than short range air to air missiles and much farther than gun range.)
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#174Is it really though? There are some really good active protection systems like Israel's TROPHY which do a pretty good job taking out incoming sabot style (tank shell, javelin, RPG) warheads. The modern incarnation[1] (M1A2 SEPv2) of the US Abrams tanks all have it [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) [2] https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-t...
No way it can take out sabot rounds. It's got to much kinetic energy and moves much faster than an ATGM
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#175The truly obsolete weapons platform is the $1.2 trillion manned F-35 program. A multi-role fighter that is too expensive to fly in this new combat space and cannot survive the multitude of anti-air missiles. The drone air war is a numbers game and unmanned fighters are both cheaper and have better operational specs.
Where do you get that from? The whole point of the 1.2 trillion endeavor is survivability.
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we'll have to wait a few years to see what impact this has on civilian air travel.
Good point, I just thought on the impact of the weapons in overall low-level criminality or regional conflicts, but I guess if enough Stingers [1] spill around it could have serious consequences on the safety of air travel all around. [1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/stinger.htm
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#177The tank isn't dead because armies still need the capabilities the tank gives them. You need a long range direct fire weapon, capable of engaging armoured targets and infantry (canister or airburst rounds), with rapid engagement of multiple targets, low time to target, rapid reloads and follow up shots, and high survivability. Lighter wheeled gun armed vehicles can be cheaper, but they don't have the survivability. T…
The survivability property is the one being questioned right now. If you can attack a tank from 5 clicks away with a high probability of success then air support and infantry have to cover a really wide perimeter inviting the question if the resources spent on the tank can give better capabilities in other form.
1. Hard-kill APS - active protection systems - mm AESA (fast, high resolution) miniature radar detecting threats and sending munitions to intercept them. See Arena, Trophy. Eventually, laser counter-drone systems for small swarms (see Israeli developments)
2. Soft-kill APS - smarter/highly-automated smoke deployment, IR smoke, radar chaff. Directed radar / IR blinders. (See T-90 systems failing in Ukraine atm)
3. Passive - lower signatures.
4. Target detection and automatic turret queuing - tanks have a lot of space, they can have sophisticated optics and computers that find targets (including OTH data from tethered drones) or find launches against them and can fire on that launch. This is less effective against fire and forget systems ala Javelin or systems like Stunga where the launch platform is away from the guidance system.
5. Trench sweepers and coupled 30mm cannons - tanks can airburst and clear trenches / buildings better.
6. Operating in fully jammed environments. This has NOT happened in Ukraine at all. Wide-area signal suppression seems like a myth in the current war.
Anyway, this is just basic stuff to look into. The tanks remains a "go fast, penetrate stuff, maneuver" platform.
One thing most people also forget is the cost of the firepower that comes with the platform. Smart/loitering munitions are still expensive, and still have a high time-to-target than direct fire or dumb mortars.
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it knows what/where exactly to engage... The point is that a soldier with a Javelin is a much less visible target than a big vehicle. Even if he runs just 40 meters away between the firing of the missile and its impact, any return fire aimed at the original site will likely miss him. And there can be a hundred of such Javelin-equipped soldiers in range.
I was an armored vehicle officer in the USMC. ATGMs are a long standing threat. There’s no scenario where hundreds of Javelins are sitting in one infantry company. It’s the type of thing that only makes sense on paper. Would be much more worried about evolution of loitering fires with drones.
But there may be cheaper and better models one day. This war has shown that ATGMs, MANPADs and their ilk have a huge potential, which means that a lot of countries and companies are going to pour resources into R&D. This usually means an overall improvement in capabilities and possibly a reduced price tag.
As an analogy: once it would be considered too expensive and impractical to equip infantry with night vision en masse. Russia still cannot do that, but for rich Western countries, it is an absolutely realistic option.
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usefulness of long range missiles depends on the rules of engagement. If the F-35 will be allowed to shoot targets over the horizon based only on instruments, it will most probably work as intended. If visual confirmation will be required, it will be a boondoggle.
Air-to-air combat has been beyond visual range (BVR) for ages now.
Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reported kill rate of javelins fired against tanks in Ukraine is 93%. Just saying.
That isn't really fair, it is comparing 90's American tech which has presumably been updated over time to, essentially, minimally maintained Soviet tech. Maybe that last 7% is the tanks they've made since ~1990.