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

221–230 of 282 posts

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

#221

Post by a_crc »

greedo wrote: post #201
a_crc wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The horizon is hundreds of miles away at altitude. You have to consider that visual range includes optical enhancement (telephoto lens etc.)

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

#222

Post by throwawayffffas »

dreen wrote: post #35
cm2187 wrote: post #2

On that topic: why Russian tanks are so vulnerable to these missiles and explode spectacularly [1]. Basically the canon auto-loads shells, and the shell storage is not in a different compartment than the turret. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/04/01/why-do...

None of these articles seem to mention WHY the tanks are designed this way (although I admit I just searched for keywords). As far as I know, it is because the current gen of Russian tanks were designed for how they envisioned WW3 40 years ago [1]. Basically the tanks would follow nuclear strikes, and making humans load the ammunition would make them die a lot quicker from radiation, so they made an autoloader. [1] h…

I don't know if I buy that, I find it a lot more likely to be because russian tanks are significantly smaller than their western counter parts. I think it's a space saving measure.

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

#223

Post by throwawayffffas »

WJW wrote: post #30
pirate787 wrote: post #13

The 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.

Are there any air superiority combat drones operational yet? I won't argue that it seems likely that manned dogfights are going to die eventually, but that moment also seems at least a decade away. Until then a F-35 with long range missiles seems to be one of the more lethal things in the air today, even if it is rather expensive. NATO has like 20x the defense budget compared to Russia though, so it's fine not to hav…

> Are there any air superiority combat drones operational yet?

From what I have seen reported every major player is working on "loyal wingmen".

Autonomous drones that would fly along manned aircraft. That way you supposedly get the best of both worlds, the situational awareness and judgement of a human along the expendability of a drone.

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

#224

Post by jandrewrogers »

greedo wrote: post #209
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US latency target for APS from detection to engagement is tens of milliseconds. That is good enough for just about everything except sabot from short range.

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

#225

Post by a_crc »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #186
a_crc wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The AIM-54 Phoenix was used 2 times with exactly zero kills, because of ID concerns[1]. You don't just go around firing missiles to radar tracks you can't identify. [1] by the US, Iran has used it more with more success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_exp...

The article you linked makes it sound like sensor and rocketry failures on some platforms that were retired 15 years ago, nothing to do with a general fear of BVR missile use. Also I believe the willingness to engage unidentified radar tracks has more to do with the nature of the conflict. I doubt the same restraint would be shown in a war against a near peer foe.

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

#226

Post by greedo »

golergka wrote: post #217
greedo wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's what I've been reading. Kamil Galeev (@kamikazani) has done an excellent job of describing how the Army has been intentionally castrated.

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

#227

Post by greedo »

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.

All Russian tanks are smoothbore...

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

#228

Post by kcb »

greedo wrote: post #216
sofixa wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To add, the primary advantage that A2A missiles have over SAM systems is that the missiles dont have to fly up 10s of thousands of feet to hit their target. Modern "dogfighting" is about achieving optimal launch conditions(Altitude, speed, heading) for your missile against the target. So even if a Cessna could detect the F-35 and carry the most advanced A2A missiles it would still be thoroughly ineffective.

To create a drone capable of threatening an F-35 requires creating something very similarly capable in all ways but without the pilot. This may exist one day but it isn't going to come at a discount.

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

#229

Post by greedo »

a_crc wrote: post #221
greedo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The horizon is hundreds of miles away at altitude. You have to consider that visual range includes optical enhancement (telephoto lens etc.)

IRST can help, but it's like viewing the world through a straw. It works best when cued by other systems. I'm unaware of any telephoto systems in use since the F-14 was retired (obviously excluding the few airframes Iran might still be using).

Unaided pilot vision is unlikely to spot a target at 22 miles without some type of guidance.

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

#230

Post by throwawayffffas »

a_crc wrote: post #225
throwawayffffas wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AIM-54 Phoenix was used 2 times with exactly zero kills, because of ID concerns[1]. You don't just go around firing missiles to radar tracks you can't identify. [1] by the US, Iran has used it more with more success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_exp...

The article you linked makes it sound like sensor and rocketry failures on some platforms that were retired 15 years ago, nothing to do with a general fear of BVR missile use. Also I believe the willingness to engage unidentified radar tracks has more to do with the nature of the conflict. I doubt the same restraint would be shown in a war against a near peer foe.

The point was not the zero kills, the point is that the US navy decided to use them in only two occasions.

In the case of the US involved conflicts it was working with allies and fighters lacking modern IFF that made the likelihood of friendly fire or collateral losses unacceptable to them.

It's a matter of acceptable risks. The AIM-54 was designed with a world war III in mind, employed in the middle of the ocean in closed airspaces were unidentified contacts could be treated as hostile with minimum political consequences.

The point I was making is here is an example of a time a major force decided not to use their prime BVR missile because of target identification concerns.

Post reply on HN