Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

Well, is one of possible solutions against drones. Another is EW, but Russia already has that one covered. Missiles are too expensive for that role.
 
Considering the number of drones that is going to be necessary to deal with it, isn't missiles a very expensive solution? Also, any vehicle doesn't carry many, unlike 57mm ammo.
I'm talking, based on the recent Azerbijan-Armenian war.
 
paulobrito said:
Considering the number of drones that is going to be necessary to deal with it, isn't missiles a very expensive solution? Also, any vehicle doesn't carry many, unlike 57mm ammo.
I'm talking, based on the recent Azerbijan-Armenian war.
Click to expand...
Cluster missles.
 
Aaron Fox said:


Ladies and gents, we're going back to large-bore autocannon AAGs, even Russia is getting onto the big-bore autocannon train.
Click to expand...


Truth to be told, they never got off the train to begin with, they never gave up autocannon SPAAGs, they just augmented them with missiles.
Either 40mm or 57mm on a vehicle was in the works for a very long time, just delayed by budget issues.

paulobrito said:
Considering the number of drones that is going to be necessary to deal with it, isn't missiles a very expensive solution? Also, any vehicle doesn't carry many, unlike 57mm ammo.
I'm talking, based on the recent Azerbijan-Armenian war.
Click to expand...

Or it could be the issue of "what works best" and "for what task"?. Only for Russia it's "for fighting / troops", in the US it's "making money for the military-industrial complex".

Because let's face it, missiles (full procurement cycle) make way much more money then autocannon ammo...

Another method of fighting drone swarms would be lasers, like the Soviet laser tank they built before the Union collapsed.
 
I dont know what the Air force does but the army goes by Artillery and missles to take out any thing that can be a threat to air, for air itself we have a few systems, and the rest we just deal with when it comes by.
 
Tryglaw said:
Truth to be told, they never got off the train to begin with, they never gave up autocannon SPAAGs, they just augmented them with missiles.
Either 40mm or 57mm on a vehicle was in the works for a very long time, just delayed by budget issues.
Click to expand...
Not large-bore autocannon. Everyone more or less gave up on anything close to 40mm or more after the late 50s/early 60s. Even Russia went for 30mm autocannon instead of going straight to 57mm. The US during the DIVAD program bucked this trend due to Bofors developing 40mm HEPF ammunition which aligned with the US Army's experiences in 'nam (i.e. 40mm autocannon are great for fire support, and to be honest if it wasn't for the fact that 40mm autocannon ammunition was too volume-hungry at the time, the Bradley would have been using 40mm autocannon right out the bat).
Or it could be the issue of "what works best" and "for what task"?. Only for Russia it's "for fighting / troops", in the US it's "making money for the military-industrial complex".

Because let's face it, missiles (full procurement cycle) make way much more money then autocannon ammo...
Click to expand...
Not really, the US doctrine is basically the 'monkey method' or 'throw shit at your opponent at as far range as possible'. Basically, keep the enemy as far as possible. Missiles are far more capable in this regard. Also, the most expensive part of the missile is generally the seeker, not the rocket, the maneuvering fins, or the warhead. From what I understand, the missile in question is simply a modified seaRAM system which, in missile terms, is dirt cheap.

Also, do not believe anything about the 'military-industrial complex' for if they were able to do even a quarter of what they were said to be capable of... someone will find out.
Another method of fighting drone swarms would be lasers, like the Soviet laser tank they built before the Union collapsed.
Click to expand...
That is using IR Continous Wave lasers with something on the order of some 20% efficiency, i.e. one of the worst lasers you can get, especially when you consider atmospherics, material transparency, and other factors. We're getting towards 50% efficient lasers right now with the US, which is major overall, and that's continuous-wave mind you. The US military is working their damnedest to get working pulse lasers which make things worse for anything that flies... that is unless you've got meters of aerogels (specifically silica and boron-nitride) OR use Battletech style armor.
 
Aaron Fox said:
Not large-bore autocannon. Everyone more or less gave up on anything close to 40mm or more after the late 50s/early 60s. Even Russia went for 30mm autocannon instead of going straight to 57mm. The US during the DIVAD program bucked this trend due to Bofors developing 40mm HEPF ammunition which aligned with the US Army's experiences in 'nam (i.e. 40mm autocannon are great for fire support, and to be honest if it wasn't for the fact that 40mm autocannon ammunition was too volume-hungry at the time, the Bradley would have been using 40mm autocannon right out the bat).

Not really, the US doctrine is basically the 'monkey method' or 'throw shit at your opponent at as far range as possible'. Basically, keep the enemy as far as possible. Missiles are far more capable in this regard. Also, the most expensive part of the missile is generally the seeker, not the rocket, the maneuvering fins, or the warhead. From what I understand, the missile in question is simply a modified seaRAM system which, in missile terms, is dirt cheap.

Also, do not believe anything about the 'military-industrial complex' for if they were able to do even a quarter of what they were said to be capable of... someone will find out.

That is using IR Continous Wave lasers with something on the order of some 20% efficiency, i.e. one of the worst lasers you can get, especially when you consider atmospherics, material transparency, and other factors. We're getting towards 50% efficient lasers right now with the US, which is major overall, and that's continuous-wave mind you. The US military is working their damnedest to get working pulse lasers which make things worse for anything that flies... that is unless you've got meters of aerogels (specifically silica and boron-nitride) OR use Battletech style armor.
Click to expand...
We are far further from using lasers then you think. You had been told this multiple times.
I wish we were as far as you think we are. Life would be easier.

But yes the US Army goes with the "I will hit you before you hit me" method.
Which is why our B52s can deploy cruise missles, and our artillery outside of standard artillery, and even that has shells capable of longer range, we use Rockets for a reason.
 
Zachowon said:
We are far further from using lasers then you think. You had been told this multiple times.
I wish we were as far as you think we are. Life would be easier.
Click to expand...
Then the fact that the US is deploying some 40-something% efficient lasers (and are only going to get better thanks to leaps to understanding laser mediums) from articles from the US military (last I've checked) with actual military deployment being a decade from now (2030) is bunk? The fact that we've got tons of data on that EM frequency transparency is false (like the usual example of Quartz being used as, essentially, an IR/heat window)?
 
Aaron Fox said:
Then the fact that the US is deploying some 40-something% efficient lasers (and are only going to get better thanks to leaps to understanding laser mediums) from articles from the US military (last I've checked) with actual military deployment being a decade from now (2030) is bunk? The fact that we've got tons of data on that EM frequency transparency is false (like the usual example of Quartz being used as, essentially, an IR/heat window)?
Click to expand...
Not saying it is false, just that we most likely won't see wide spread deployment of ir by 2030. We may see further advanced trails of it by then.
Unless we get a breakthrough in the next 5 years we won't see widespread deployment of it in 10 years.
Hell the Army won't even have the newest standard issue weapon ready by 2025.
 
Zachowon said:
Not saying it is false, just that we most likely won't see wide spread deployment of ir by 2030. We may see further advanced trails of it by then.
Unless we get a breakthrough in the next 5 years we won't see widespread deployment of it in 10 years.
Hell the Army won't even have the newest standard issue weapon ready by 2025.
Click to expand...
Given how quick digital fire control was implemented... I wouldn't be so dead sure.
 
It was originally envisioned to defend against Yugoslav Gazelle helicopters, armed with Maljutka missiles. With Yugoslavia gone, there was no reason to build it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top