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

251–260 of 282 posts

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

#251

Post by greedo »

rtkwe wrote: post #214
kitrose wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Only 14lbs for the CLU. That's HEAVY. Someone still needs to hump that around, plus the missiles. Plus all the battle rattle gear. The Army did away with the 11H MOS, so now everyone is either an 11B or 11C. Stuff gets heavy, and rarely gets lighter.

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

#252

Post by greedo »

inglor_cz wrote: post #117
kitrose wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tank can engage at similar distances.

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.

Do you know what you call 100 Javelin equipped soldiers in a group? A target rich environment. The paper/rock/scissors idea would have mortars ranging down on that group in a flash. Try running away while humping 45lbs of gear while under mortar fire.

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

#253

Post by yobbo »

greedo wrote: post #247
hef19898 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which systems are out there that are actually comparable to the JSF? Both the Eurofighter and the Rafale are one gen older (not sure if that actually matters that much so). Which leaves the Russian and Chinese planes, for which cost is hard to come by.

Chinese FC-31 is close to the F-35 (in design and theory, but who knows about actual performance), but it's not in production yet.

Looking at pictures, it has two visible round jet nozzles which suggests it has much higher radar cross-section and IR-signature than F-35.

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

#254

Post by AnimalMuppet »

greedo wrote: post #226
golergka wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm. Intentionally? That would be beautifully ironic if Putin nerfed the army (judging a competent army as being a threat to his rule), and then he didn't have a working army when he wanted to invade Ukraine.

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

#255

Post by greedo »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #241
hef19898 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 functi…

> Air support is as vulnerable to MANPADs as tanks are to a Javelin They are not, the fact the Russians have lost so many planes is a testament to their inability to suppress the Ukrainian air defense. Fighters are capable of flying far higher than MANPAD ceilings the only reason to fly that low is to employ visually guided weapons under cloud cover or to attempt to hide behind the terrain against longer range air de…

It depends. If you're like Russia and only have limited stocks of PGMs, then you're stuck using dumb bombs and S-8 unguided rockets. So you either bomb from high altitude, which isn't really air support, much less CAS, or you get down in the weeds where you're facing Igla, Starstreak, Stinger, or Groms. Those will ruin your day pretty quick, and a plane flying CAS is much easier to see (and hear) than a tank. And if you're a helicopter, the same rules apply.

Tactical aircraft in Ukraine is also targeted by Buk/Tor/Tunguska, but I believe most of the aircraft and helo losses have been due to MANPADs.

Now the US is realizing that what it once thought of as robust stocks of PGMs may not be enough for a high-intensity conflict. Production rates of Javelin are pretty slow, and the Stinger has been out of production for a while with no planned replacement. The US Army has always given air defense low priority, counting on the USAF to provide air supremacy. Against a near pear, that might not be the wisest choice, and doesn't help with drones anyways.

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

#256

Post by yobbo »

hoseja wrote: post #27
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep and useless in the north, where the actual closest borders with Russia are.

Haha don't tell me it can't fly in the cold or something.

It might need a landing parachute on short or icy runways. The other concerns mentioned is that stealth is compromised with drop tanks which are needed for range. There might be other concerns?

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

#257

Post by greedo »

yobbo wrote: post #253
greedo wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese FC-31 is close to the F-35 (in design and theory, but who knows about actual performance), but it's not in production yet.

Looking at pictures, it has two visible round jet nozzles which suggests it has much higher radar cross-section and IR-signature than F-35.

It's extremely difficult to evaluate RCS by looking visually at an aircraft. Who would have thought that the F-117 would be stealthy? And the reason the F-35 only has one engine is because it has a much higher thrust than the RD-93 on the FC31. This increase in thrust "might" increase its IR signature, and neither has any IR shielding like on the F-22.

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

#258

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #149
UncleMeat wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the modern day, humans are not necessarily "cheap disposable units." At least for the US, it is not politically feasible to have 50,000-100,000 people die in a war anymore. 4,431 US soldiers were killed in Iraq. The calculus has changed and now dollars are cheaper than lives.

>humans are not necessarily "cheap disposable units" Putin and most of the Russian military doctrine would beg to differ.

To what degree do you think that Russia's losses in Afghanistan led to the fall of the Soviet Union?

Since 1945, Russia hasn't shown that it can accept a war of mass casualties without political fallout. Russian military doctrine may say that it can, but Putin would be unwise to assume so.

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

#259

Post by Paradigma11 »

Markoff wrote: post #128
pjc50 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how and why would that happen?

one of the most corrupt goverments in Europe with their leader known corrupt politician Zelensky, see Pandora papers https://www.rferl.org/a/pandora-papers-tax-havens/31490744.h... there is no reason to assume weaponry will be somehow excluded from their corrupted business operations

He was operating a successful media company. Is there any evidence, that the money came from illegal sources?

Its not like a medium income politician having hundreds of millions stored away.

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

#260

Post by rightbyte »

gonzo41 wrote: post #17
formerly_proven wrote: post #7

People conclude that tanks (sometimes, armour in general) are obsolete because the most modern anti-tank weapons defeat exactly the 70s tanks they were designed to defeat in the 90s. If anything, when someone makes this point, it tells you they are clueless.

It's not that simple though, If you fired a a few Javelins against an Abrams with a Trophy system you'd still be at risk from one of the multiple shots over time. And even if the rounds don't cook off, if the EFP goes through the crew compartment, everyone is toast from blast wounds. I think the main gun on an MBT will be replaced by rocket systems on smaller lighter, faster vehicles like the Boxer CRV family. Edit j…

I don't think you get much sustainability using guided rocket systems. You need something to shoot at suspected targets in bushes, windows and stuff and expensive rockets wont do. You will run out of them. Dumb ammo is plenty.
Post reply on HN