If an RPG can do it...
nfloorl: I have seen a demonstration of a T-80 shooting down a low flying drone with a Reflex ATGM. It is just a matter of keeping the laser designator on target.
Air Defense for Armored Formations
- Thread starter .pt
- Start date
nfloorl: I have seen a demonstration of a T-80 shooting down a low flying drone with a Reflex ATGM. It is just a matter of keeping the laser designator on target.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Hitting a helicopter overflying an urban area at low altitude doesn't take much skill, and neither is hitting a Chinook at an LZ
Reflex is an ATGM. It takes 16 seconds for it to reach a target at 5000m, but can't cope with anything flying over 300km/h. Russians see it as LOW utility round, and during Soviet era issues only about 3 (more likely 1) per tank. The intended use is for SNIPING from overwatch (my opinion). However they did follow up the Shilka with the Tunguska
Shooting a moving target from a tank gun is not much different from what infantry do, however the problem as I see it is not FCS (acquisition; and is there a search radar?!) but ability to track with the turret traversing.
Proximity fuse (shotgun round) is the answer since the infantryman depends on volume of fire also, and a tank can't do that. Even the old flechette warhead will do!
However elsewhere I pointed out that outside of the stony desert the average LOS for a tank is limited to maybe 2,500 metres, and more likely 6-900m. If helicopters are added into the range of targets for a tank, the threat area assumes a very large envelope! it seems to me the optics in most Western tanks will not allow this unless the crew are on overwatch, and helicopter overwatch at that! Helicopter overwatch requires viewing the parts of visible terrain which are NOT likely to generate ground targets! It seems tanks are still the 'killers' for ground targets, but accompanying IFVs (in current weapon configuration) are not able to engage helos at the 2,500+ range.
This comes back to dedicated AD assets vs 'hybriding' the largest part of AFV vehicle fleets (the IFVs/APCs) to cope with a variety of targets. It seems the warhead designers (tank or ATGW) are a but 'fixated' on the WW2 ideal of penetration
Then there is acquisition issue. Most current generation attack helos have mast mounted acquisition systems. This allows detection of ground targets from 'fuselage-down' hovers. Finding a tank is not so hard considering the mess they make when firing, never mind moving (apparently Mi-28Ns have directional acoustic sensors). This allows missile launch without initial detection. Even when warning does go on in the tank (for laser or IR seekers) the crew has literally seconds to do something!
Are you suggesting that the commander will elect to stuff around with FCS trying to acquire the attacking helicopter?! Hmmm...what are tanker balls rated in RHa?!!
FutureTank
Banned Member
And does it come with a free air search radar? Is there any practical way to visually search for air targets using tank optics at 8000m?! Seems like another 'upgrade' sale.
I can just see the name for the anti-helo FCS 'Chamelion'! One set of eyes looks close and to the right, and another far and to the left
FutureTank
Banned Member
For sure you are dead meat if for example a AH-64D or Tiger sees you first with his mast.
Especially when attacking lonely tank columns are hunted by modern AT-helicopters these gunships have a good chance of seeing the enemy tanks first.
But in a very complex warfare situation it is not that sure that the gunship pilots sees the tank first. And then he has a problem. The turret has no problem to follow the target. Normally gunships don't fly with 300 km/h while lurking through a dangerous area.
Especially when attacking lonely tank columns are hunted by modern AT-helicopters these gunships have a good chance of seeing the enemy tanks first.
But in a very complex warfare situation it is not that sure that the gunship pilots sees the tank first. And then he has a problem. The turret has no problem to follow the target. Normally gunships don't fly with 300 km/h while lurking through a dangerous area.
It is a huge difference. The FCS does most of the work. You are right when saying that most of the time target acquisition is the key. But it is doable.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Linebacker?
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/linebacker/
(That picture at the bottom is most amusing!
)Yeah, but as of June this year they no longer exist.. they converted them back to standard. Why did they do that?Linebacker?
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/linebacker/
(That picture at the bottom is most amusing!
FutureTank
Banned Member
I think that is what Soviet designers of Kontakt and Rfleks were hoping also
I would have to see it to believe it because the ballistics have to be on the skill level of a very good sniper where the target knows it is a target! This is basic assumption helo pilots fly under, and they have worse enemies then a tank to worry about!
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I'm guessing it's a rethorical question, but answering anyway.
Because they are not needed in a US context ie air dominance.
Yup - and no custoumer to pester the complaints department as they were dead.And if you were a defence systems salesman you would see opportunity
@Big-E
This is what I heard is the reason.
And I tend to agree that the USA mught be the only ones where this could really work just because they are lightyears ahead of every opponent if it comes to air domination.
@FutureTank
For sure there are other things a helicopter crew has to worry about (Specialised AA vehicles, SAMs, MANPADs, Fighters,...).
But when he is spottet first by a mech unit he still has a problem.
Up to 3000m IFVs can attack him very accurate and deadly with programable burst rounds.
Up to 4000m you are able to hit a helicopter with a 120mm round which is not doing loopings or flying like a madman and with 300+ km/h.
The FCS is good enough for this and there is a reason why we, the US and many other train for this. Do you think we do this for fun?
It works.
There are also reports of US mechanized units making a massacre out of some approaching AH-1 Cobras which were too sure about their dominance during maneuvers. The same for our Bo-105.
For example if the Helicopter is 3500 meters away and lurks around searching for targets a tank who sees him lasers him. The FCS calculates the range and moving of the target and you fire. If it is a KE the round hits the enemy in 2 seconds. And if a 120mm KE hits your helicopter the only question is if you are able to get back to base or crash instantly. A mission kill is nearly sure.
No time to react for the pilot. His only chance is having pure luck and making a surprise movement right when the tank fires.
This is what I heard is the reason.
And I tend to agree that the USA mught be the only ones where this could really work just because they are lightyears ahead of every opponent if it comes to air domination.
@FutureTank
For sure there are other things a helicopter crew has to worry about (Specialised AA vehicles, SAMs, MANPADs, Fighters,...).
But when he is spottet first by a mech unit he still has a problem.
Up to 3000m IFVs can attack him very accurate and deadly with programable burst rounds.
Up to 4000m you are able to hit a helicopter with a 120mm round which is not doing loopings or flying like a madman and with 300+ km/h.
The FCS is good enough for this and there is a reason why we, the US and many other train for this. Do you think we do this for fun?
It works.
There are also reports of US mechanized units making a massacre out of some approaching AH-1 Cobras which were too sure about their dominance during maneuvers. The same for our Bo-105.
For example if the Helicopter is 3500 meters away and lurks around searching for targets a tank who sees him lasers him. The FCS calculates the range and moving of the target and you fire. If it is a KE the round hits the enemy in 2 seconds. And if a 120mm KE hits your helicopter the only question is if you are able to get back to base or crash instantly. A mission kill is nearly sure.
No time to react for the pilot. His only chance is having pure luck and making a surprise movement right when the tank fires.
Big E:
Air Defence is really about getting your act together - if anything is.
Fighters
Attack planes
SAMs
MANPADS
AAA
Observers
Radar
Control
abusive language
That is why I say it is a very big challenge for netcentric warfare. Say AAA didn't hit very much during the cold war; but they "lifted" the attackers up where the SAMs and fighters could butcher them.
Was/is AAA outdated because they don't kill - it depends on how much they contribute to SYSTEM effectiveness.
Did Luftmeldekorpset ever come close to hitting enemy aircraft - NO. Were they handy for those who did - well ask the US Air Force.
Air Defence is really about getting your act together - if anything is.
Fighters
Attack planes
SAMs
MANPADS
AAA
Observers
Radar
Control
abusive language
That is why I say it is a very big challenge for netcentric warfare. Say AAA didn't hit very much during the cold war; but they "lifted" the attackers up where the SAMs and fighters could butcher them.
Was/is AAA outdated because they don't kill - it depends on how much they contribute to SYSTEM effectiveness.
Did Luftmeldekorpset ever come close to hitting enemy aircraft - NO. Were they handy for those who did - well ask the US Air Force.
Good post - if it is hovering or getting into a ambush position it will be dead meat if it comes across a 120mm maingun round, this as been tested and the ballistic computers on our tanks will have no problems.
At the current time there is no threat.
The round that he is referring to is a top attack munition that is painted by a laser designator, you don`t even need to see the target, a ground pounder or fister paints it you launch it.And does it come with a free air search radar? Is there any practical way to visually search for air targets using tank optics at 8000m?! Seems like another 'upgrade' sale.
I can just see the name for the anti-helo FCS 'Chamelion'! One set of eyes looks close and to the right, and another far and to the left
Even the US don't have enough money for everything and the DoD just decided that the small range direct AA-support is something where you could save money.
Maybe some "very intelligent" man may have seen the supa dupa F-22...
You can imagine the rest of the story.
Could bite you in the ass when you ever has to go against an opponent with a not that low tech army and pilots and tacticans who know how to use their home terrain.
Maybe some "very intelligent" man may have seen the supa dupa F-22...
You can imagine the rest of the story.
Could bite you in the ass when you ever has to go against an opponent with a not that low tech army and pilots and tacticans who know how to use their home terrain.