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

211–220 of 282 posts

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

#211

Post by greedo »

hef19898 wrote: post #181
greedo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The secret has been out for 40+ years. The Sagger decimated Israeli tanks in the Sinai in 1973 until the IDF started using combined arms tactics. The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe. The Hellfire (and to a lesser extent, the TOW) dominated Iraq during the Desert Storm, and during the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Javelin itself is almost…

>> The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe That's what I call over simplification.

Yes, because conflicts between superpowers can be easily summed up in a HN post.

The point is that modern, competent armies have been preparing to counter the ATGM threat for over half a century.

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

#212

Post by hef19898 »

rtkwe wrote: post #204
hef19898 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 ai…

>> f22 and f35 have less than 5 seconds of ammo

That's one of the big challenges, isn't it? If an enemy catches a flight of F-35s / F-22s with enough numbers the result could be devastating. And the big limitation of stealth aircraft is payload. Have them carry more, on external hardpoints, and they loose stealth. Have them maintain stealth means carrying less. Having too large internal bays makes them useless as fighters. Quite a fascinating conundrum there.

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

#213

Post by jandrewrogers »

simonh wrote: post #125
Pelic4n wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reported kill rate of javelins fired against tanks in Ukraine is 93%. Just saying.

The numbers don't add up. The US has sent 7,000 javelins to Ukraine and overall they're been sent 30,000 anti-tank weapons and Ukraine is asking for hundreds more per day. It seems unlikely those javelins have killed 6,510 (.93 * 7000) Russian tanks, or that they will be destroying hundreds more per day. Many of the drone videos released by the Ukrainians show tanks hit by ATGMs but not actually being destroyed. For…

Javelins are designed to be used for more than destroying armor, it has other selectable operating modes. They are being used by the Ukrainians against non-armor vehicles and as direct-fire weapons (US infantry uses this mode a lot). It also has a mode for helicopters.

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

#214

Post by rtkwe »

kitrose wrote: post #195
inglor_cz wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of today, hundreds are out of question, yes. 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 imp…

Price tag is a small part of it. Have you ever humped a combat load? It sucks. You’re rolling out with 40 lbs of stuff hanging off you before we even talk sustainment. Javelin has gotta be 40-50 lbs. Add that on. Want an extra missile? Add another 30 or so. Now suppose you don’t run into any armor, this is why every infantryman doesn’t/won’t carry one. Maybe 1 per squad, if we want to be super aggressive maybe 1 per…

Most of the weight is in the missiles themselves at 35 lbs (15.9kg) the targeting unit is only 14 lbs (6.4kg). So for defensive scenarios or preset ambushes the missiles could be brought in via vehicle and prestaged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

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

#215

Post by hef19898 »

jakogut wrote: post #208
swader999 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only NATO tank with a rifled cannon is the Challenger 2. The Brits preferred HEASH ammo, a rifled cannon improved accuracy. It took some development to get HEAT and SABOTs that can be fired from a rifled cannon. No idea what the Russian tanks are using.

EDIT: Just looked, the T-72 has a 125 mm smoothbore cannon.

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

#216

Post by greedo »

sofixa wrote: post #203
greedo wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Slow drones won't be able to engage an F-35 in A2A combat because that's primarily determined by energy state. A Cessna 172 can carry about 100lbs of weapons after taking fuel and pilot into consideration. A Stinger weighs about 30 lbs or so, so three could be carried. Range of the Stinger is about 5 miles, so still sounds plausible.

So your cloud of Cessnas could conceivably carry 60 Stingers. How will they detect a fighter flying at 30K? A 172 can only get to about 15K in perfect conditions. It flies at like 100mph compared to a Mach 2 F-35.

Again, short of being a suicide bomber trying to kill an F-35 on the ramp, this idea is ludicrous.

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

#217

Post by golergka »

greedo wrote: post #193
throw1234651234 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am too lazy to write anything cohesive. Here is starting point on things that will make the tank more survivable and persist it as a heavy weapon platform. 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. So…

Better combined arms tactics and road march protocols will reduce the losses from these attacks. It's like the Russians became stupid. No bounding overwatch, no artillery prep, no jamming as you said. No air support, dumb attack helicopter usage. No effective recon, no proper ambush engagement. It's like you gave a bunch of military gear to drunk conscripts who were poorly trained... A cohesive BCT would be able to d…

Army has been the most despised and low-status part of Russian society for the last 30 years, and mandatory service has been something that anybody with any means tried to avoid like he'll for even longer. The only people who go into an army career are those who don't have any means or talents for anything else.

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

#218

Post by SEJeff »

greedo wrote: post #207
SEJeff wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, then clearly I was mistaken. Take your upvote!

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

#219

Post by PartiallyTyped »

ape4 wrote: post #46
mothsonasloth wrote: post #19

I think we will see the tanks in future battlefields still but rather than cannons they will be using more electronic warfare and will be providing indirect fire with "smart" weapons. Essentially they will be multi role armoured vehicles with high manoeuvrability e.g. (British Ajax Scout Vehicle) Or my sci-fi'ish theory of a "drone tank" Why? * Governments have high demands from defence and at the same time want low…

Yup drone vs drone seems like the future.

Reinforcement Learning will shine. From starcraft, even with all the handicaps, AlphaStar was capable of out maneuvering and outdoing humans in micro(management) without breaking a sweat! Now remove those limitations and let the stuff run on the hardware the US military has access to and you have a truly lethal swarm.

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

#220

Post by hef19898 »

greedo wrote: post #211
hef19898 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe That's what I call over simplification.

Yes, because conflicts between superpowers can be easily summed up in a HN post. The point is that modern, competent armies have been preparing to counter the ATGM threat for over half a century.

You can't sum up highly complex topics in one sentence? Shit! ;-)

On a more serious note, I would have counted the Russians in the group of competent armies. Maybe they were during the cold war, Afghanistan is not really a good measure. Maybe they were not, no way to ever find out. All being said, I'm happy that we never found out so far. Because one thing is sure, finding out involves turning whatever region is used to find out into a war zone.

Post reply on HN