Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

warontherocks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 282 posts

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#201

Post by greedo »

a_crc wrote: post #141
alexvoda wrote: post #56

Earlier 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.)

AIM-9X has a 22 mile range...

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#202

Post by chernevik »

I don't think the article pays enough attention to drones. It does mention their importance, and the possibility that they will do away with armor altogether -- and then says, "well, we don't yet know if that's right, so tanks are probably still important." Seems to me that whether or not that is right is the big question.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#203

Post by sofixa »

greedo wrote: post #171
sofixa wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is ridiculous. A Cessna 172 might be able to suicide into a parked F-35, but the idea that 20 would be able to engage it in a dogfight and win just shows a complete lack of aerospace knowledge.

Dogfighting is a thing of the past. 20 Cessnas approaching from different directions, with decently ranged AA missiles ( which is the point of the discussion, OP compared drone performances to a Cessna, and everyone is going in on the allegory, but the real question is if slow drones would be able to tackle an F-35, and the answer is it will depend on their armament, but probably) could overwhelm an F-35.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#204

Post by rtkwe »

hef19898 wrote: post #158
raducu wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also remote controlled ATGMs and I'm sure remote controlled machine guns and other stuff (the israelis already have a lot of remote controlled machine guns afik). The tank may not be completely obsolete and indeed properly used like the US did and like Russia sadly probably re-learned it is a very useful tool. More defensive automation will put even that "properly used" to the test. I think we've just scratched the s…

>> the missile making dogfights obsolete -- a little early, but true eventually. Not true so. The US thought that in Vietnam, the F-4 (?) didn't have an on-board canon for that very reason. All new planes again have one, because dog fights turned out to be very much a thing. The Phoenix missile, and the F-14, have been built around the beyond-visual range idea. Both are out of service now. Beyond visual range works w…

That's a question we won't really know the answer to until we get a nice big shooting war between peer air forces again. So hopefully not in my lifetime. I think what they really learned was dropping guns is a gamble and when you don't /really/ have to control costs that much it's safer to include a limited gun in case you need it. AFAIK the current doctrine thinks dog fights are going to be a small part of air to air combat as both the f22 and f35 have less than 5 seconds of ammo.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#205

Post by hef19898 »

usrbinbash wrote: post #190
hef19898 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the submitted article for details, but it comes basically down to the need of protected offensive destructive power (a tank) to get infantry close enough to engage the target. Without said tank, the infantry will be eliminated by enemy artillery and static defenses. So the trick is to protect the tanks. That is done by suppressing enemy positions with artillery and air support. And to protect your air assets, yo…

> the need of protected offensive destructive power (a tank) Offensive destructive power can be provided by air support, long range self-guiding weapons and drone weaponry as well. I also don't believe that ATGMs mean "Tanks are already obsolete". But I do think they are under threat of becoming so, because: ATGMs will get better, as will drones. Meanwhile, a tank will always be a big hunk of metal moving comparative…

Air support is as vulnerable to MANPADs as tanks are to a Javelin, that's one of the (potential) reasons why neither side has air dominance over Ukraine. And long-range guided weapons are awfully expensive. And they need eyes on the ground. And they cannot carry infantry into battle, nor can infantry hide behind them.

EDIT: The point is that a tank will be made obsolete by weapon system that replaces the tanks function on the battlefield. And not by a system that can destroy a tank. Because those anti-tank systems exist since WW1. Initially the Germans were not that impressed by tanks, large caliber rifles and re-purposed field guns worked just fine against the first tanks the French and British used. Nobody stopped tank, or anti-tank weapon, development then so. I don't see a reason why anybody would stop tank development just because we have impressive Javelin footage. If anything, tanks will improve to increase protection against ATGMs and drones. As will tactics and doctrine.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#206

Post by cmrdporcupine »

juki wrote: post #191
zip1234 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has 2 squadrons of F-35s in Alaska.

Finland also just recently signed a deal for 64 F35s after several years of research and comparing alternatives. I'm fairly confident that if there was some significant problem, they would have picked something else.

No offense but there's a huge difference between tiny Finland and pretty small Alaska and the giant Canadian North. Finland has a large border shared with Russia but it's nothing compared to the massive mostly undefended coastline along the arctic ocean that Canada shares with Russia. An absolutely potentially huge operating theatre.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#207

Post by greedo »

SEJeff wrote: post #174
greesil wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way it can take out sabot rounds. It's got to much kinetic energy and moves much faster than an ATGM

I said sabot style… meaning explosive shaped charge to take out external armor, and usually a small (usually titanium) penetrator. An RPG just has the shaped charge aspect. Trophy was designed exactly to kill stuff like rpgs.

There's no "sabot style." It's either a sabot, or a HEAT round. A sabot is typically a depleted uranium dart with no warhead at all.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#208

Post by jakogut »

swader999 wrote: post #80
zip1234 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw some tanker on twitter explaining just how bad the Russian tactics with their tanks are. Poor training, poor logistics, and undermanned. Tanks get such poor gas mileage that they need tons of support. Extremely effective weapons when used properly but clearly Russia is not doing that.

On the note of logistics, the turrrets on these lose their rifling after a few hundred rounds, they need to be replaced in field after this or they just become much less precise. Same with artillery.

The M1 Abrams, along with many other modern tanks, has a smoothbore cannon.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#209

Post by greedo »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #200
sushibowl wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

modern APFSDS rounds work purely through kinetic energy penetration and don't contain any explosive charge. The penetrator is usually around an inch in diameter, and maybe 30 inches long. I doubt Trophy can target these rounds effectively since velocity is just too high, something like mach 5 (compared to a javelin's paltry 140 m/s).

A TROPHY system wouldn't screw up the APFSDS round's bearing and structural stability? I know it's moving really fast, but how effective is it should the tip be broken off, or the round begin to tumble in flight before hitting the tank at a broadside angle?

IF the APS system (Trophy or Arena) could hit the sabot in time, yes, it would diminish its penetration capability substantially. Whether it can react fast enough to do so is doubtful. 3500mph projectiles are tough to counter. There have been plans to try to deflect it via armor so the tip gets shattered and the energy dissipated, but I'm not sure how effective that is with current armor tech.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#210

Post by greedo »

chernevik wrote: post #189
exabrial wrote: post #138

The way _Russia_ uses tanks has been dead... basically since 1972 and the advent of the A10. Here a $23 munition, fired quickly, could chew up an armor column. Don't forget the Javelin is still $250k, it's not exactly cheap. Tanks must be supported by infantry teams. Without capable mortar teams, rifle teams, automatic weapons teams, they are sitting ducks, as Russia has proven.

The A10 probably couldn't survive in the Ukraine airwar environment.

Nope. Maybe slightly better than the SU-25s have, and Maverick etc might make them able to stand off a bit from all the manpads, but the A-10 would be an easy kill for any fighters/SAMS.
Post reply on HN