ATGM Vs Tank

[We7det_el_qetal]

No my option wasn't taken because developed countries need to deploy overseas and developing countries are ruled by dictator morons that's why

My air-defense encompasses the full spectrum of AAA assets

1- S-400 & S-300 cover long range engagment

2- BUK-M2 is a medium range SAM

3- Tunguska-M1 is AAA/missile system

4- PL-9D is a mobile short range SAM system.

what do u mean by higher level transport assets, my strategy is totally defensive i have a light fast ground army based on jeeps and APCs employing BVR ground engagement technologies like HERMIS and MOKOPA relying on ground radar and terminal guidance by SOF operatives using laser designators.

Sadam Hussiens genius was obvious in DS and for 12 years he could have learnt some lessons but well, opression go hand in hand with stupidty

My air defense plan is putting S-400 and S-300 batteries in open ground and surrounding them with BUK-M2 and use TOR-M1 and Tunguska for local protection of the batteries.

PL-9D is to provide mobile cover for the ground forces which will be mainly consisted of jeeps and APCs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well your last effort has finally provided a more layered air defence system at least. If we'd started that way the conversation could have been more interesting...

A totally defensive force eh? What do you call the Tactical Ballistic missile system then? Defensive? Because this capability is a greater offensive strike capability than any possessed by my Countries entire army (which incidentlydoes not consider itself a "totally" defensive force)... Very few Countries possess a standoff precision strike missile with a range like you've suggested for your "defensive force"...

Australia proposed purchasing one for our Airforce a few months back (JASSM or something similar) and it set off howls of alarm throughout our region and had countries accusing us of trying to start an "arms race"...

Unfortunately they chose NOT to view the fact that this weapon in conjunction with our F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft is to replace the capability provided by our current long range F-111 strike aircraft. The net effect will be a significant reduction in the range that we will be able to strike an enemy and a significant reduction in the "throw weight" of our Air force.

Precision strike missiles by the nature of their design have relatively small warheads. (The JASSM for instance only possesses a 1000lbs warhead while the SLAM-ER missile only possesses a 500lbs warhead). Most strike fighter/bombers normally (depending on the target) carry 2000lbs bombs (either precision guided or "dumb" bombs).

By equipping our short range air defence fighters with a reasonably long range standoff weapon (of which they can carry 2) and using this to replace our bombers (which on long range strike missions normally carry 4 2000lbs precision guided bombs, or 4 standoff missiles) we achieve an actual decrease in both the range we can deliver munitions to and the "weight" of munitions we can actually deploy against an enemy. In addition to this we also reduce the number of aircraft available to provide air defence for our forces and Country because they are busy shouldering the responsibility of our strike capabilities...

Yet despite this, the howls from the uninformed politicians of other countries (and it wasn't just 1 Country that complained, there were several) shows that they feel (or pretend to) threatened by an acquisition of such a weapon system. It is therefore likely that possession of such a weapon by your "defensive force" would not be viewed as defensive as such...

The "higher" level transports I referred to are what militaries consider: Helicopters, fixed wing transport aircraft such as (C-130 Hercules, AN-26's, C-295's etc) and also Naval ships like Amphibious warfare ships etc to be... Basing your entire force's mobility on jeeps and APC's, severely limit's both your tactical and strategic maneuver options (ie: rapid deployment of special operations forces, light infantry and air mobile infantry forces).

It will also mean you will have no parachute capable forces (and not having your specwarops forces parachute trained is a significant loss of capability). This will also eliminate a very valuable insertion method for your specwarries, (as will the lack of helo's) and will leave you forces unable to dominate and control your entire territory. You will not be able to rapidly insert or deploy rapid reaction forces as APC's and jeeps are fairly slow compared to helo's...

To make things worse your forces will be extremely limited in their ability to operate in high level terrain (mountains) and will be severely affected in heavy snow conditions (every single one of your soldiers will, like Hannibal have to walk EVERYWHERE) or alternatively in heavy jungle conditions your forces will again be forced to walk almost everywhere, as jungle conditions significantly (but not entirely) inhibit tracked or wheeled vehicle use. But maybe your "outside the square" thinking can solve, these previously unavoidable problems?

If you have no Navy or airforce, how are you going to patrol and surveil your territorial waters, let alone possess a capability to defend them? The only effective way Countries have devised of doing this, is to employ maritime patrol aircraft, surface and submarine vessels. In addition how are you going to provide a mine clearing capability? Have your divers "swim" out to them?

No Navy or Airforce also significantly inhibits you from deploying forces on International peace-keeping or humanitarian missions. Wouldn't you want your Country to be a good international citizen and have a capability to deploy on UN approved missions? The lack of an airforce or Navy means you will have to rely on other Countries capabilties to deploy your forces. Some might not want to, as why should they help you? When they know that you CAN'T and WON'T help them, because of your deliberate defence acquistions. Being a good international citizen and assisting foreign Countries in a friendly and equitable manner, will do far more for your defence than even the best SAM system ever could...

And one last thought. If you have a totally defensive force, does this mean that you will only ever respond to an attack and meet that attack with the appropriate force, but not seek to in anyway prevent that attack or ensure that your enemy is unable to prosecute any further attacks in future? If THAT is your strategy I don't think your own citizens will be overly impressed with your leadership and I'd imagine you would be removed from office fairly quickly...

 

[Pendekar]

being totally defensive means lacking the initiative. they can only react to enemy actions and that's not a good strategy.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

to Aussie, I think Australia and every country who can afford it should get TBM capability, it's so much cheaper and it simply rains firepower from the sky, the Iskander-E has a warhead of 700 kg approx., this means about 300 Kitolov-2M guided munitions could be loaded into a single warhead, which means that an armoured division targeted by a single Iskander will have a very bad time indeed

I have to agree TBM capability provides some interesting means of precison deep strike capability at ridiculously cheap price, i have to rephrase buddy, what i meant by a totally defensive force was that most of my military would be operating within my borders except for TBM ofcourse and the SOF who have to recce the targets for these missiles.

Regarding higher level transports, the air defense i propose would make F-22s , F-35s and B-2s have a realy realy hard time, so what air assets could survive the on slaught of such an air defense, to give an idea of what i'm speaking about, I'm egyptian so i'm talking about 5 battalions of S-400 , 8 battalions of S-300PMU2 , 20 battalions of BUK-M2, 30 mixed battalions of TOR-M1 and Tunguska.

As for SOF, localised contingencies will be spread all over the theatre and patrol their assigned areas and monitor the electronic surveilance systems in their AO.

A detachment of SOF will do deep insertion using SAS style jeep patrols for recce of valuble enemy targets to devise an attack mission using TBM to eliminate important enemy nodes such as staging areas, ammo depots and rear area bases.

As for mountains and jungles, well Egypt doesn't have any of the said terrain so it won't be a problem

As for naval patrols I'm working on a plan for that but it's not my priority now, as I have first to counter the enemy's armour and airpower first then start thinking about how to counter the navy.

AS for International peace-keeping or humanitarian missions I could maintain a small force of military transport planes to deploy my forces which are already light and don't need a lot of transports as they are jeeps and APCs.

"Being a good international citizen and assisting foreign Countries in a friendly and equitable manner, will do far more for your defence than even the best SAM system ever could... "

Well nope, a professional strong military is what ensures security

I will not provide a detailed plan of my defence strategy as that will take too long to present here, but once it's established that an opposing country has hostile intentions towards egypt, then i plan to use premptive strikes using TBMs and deep raids behind enemy lines using SOF, and using other aspects of Asymmetrical-warfare to complicate the enemy's ability to muster he's invasion forces and cripple his economy.

Mod edit: Path: Off topic discussion, get back on track please.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Royal Australian Navy and the ADF in general has long sought a tactical land attack missile system (the Navy wants Tactical Tomahawk Block IV missiles for it's upcoming Air warfare destroyers, AWD's, and as a retrofit for our Collins Class submarines), the problem is not the cost of the weapons, indeed Tactical Tomahawk is as cheap as JASSM, the problem is the capability that such a weapon would provide.

Our Asian neighbours nearly threw a fit a year or 2 back when our Prime Minister announced that we would proactively target terrorists in the War on Terror. Certain politicians (who demonstrated an Anti-Australian bias for many, many years) took this comment out of context and declaimed loudly that Australia was attempting to become the "sheriff" of the USA in the Asia-Pacific region.

Australia has NO such intentions, a brief look at our military capabilities (both current and planned) shows clearly that we have no such intention, but the ill-informed seized on this and stated that they would strongly resist any Australian military attack on their territory, even if it was in pursuit of terrorists...

A weapon of the class of the Tomahawk Block IV fitted to our Collins Class subs and AWD's, would give us the capability to attack targets throughout the Asian-Pacific region with almost total impunity and would royally 'pi#s off' our neighbours. Probably starting an arms race. It is for this reason our politicians WILL not acquire a weapon of this class, (despite the fact that we could easily afford it, easily integrate it into our force structure AND it's readily available to us) unless someone else within our region acquires a similar capability first...

As to the capability of your air defence assets. I think you over estimate the capability provided by SAM's, and vastly underestimate the capabilities of attack aircraft. There have been numerous occasions where areas have been extremely heavily defended with layered SAM's and AAA (Anti Aircraft Artillery FYI) networks and yet have crumbled and failed under sustained and systematic air attack. Often these vaunted networks have been declared "invincible" (or near enough) by so-called experts and just as often these have been destroyed mostly for VERY little loss of attacking aircraft.

Such networks have existed in Iraq (destroyed twice by US/UK airpower) Bosnia/Herzigovina (destroyed by NATO airpower) Libya, (destroyed by US airpower), Syria (destroyed by Israeli airpower) the Falklands (destroyed by UK airpower and Naval Gunnery support) Vietnam (destroyed by US air power) and in Angola where Russian and Cuban maintained air defence networks were destroyed by the South African Air force and Army.

The current Egyptian Air force is well equipped with over 220 F-16C's, (making Egypt the 4th largest F-16 operator in the world), 35 upgraded F-4E Phantoms and 20 Mirage 2000 fighters plus a large inventory of older Chinese and Russian fighters. These are well supported by 6 E-2C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft which are being upgraded to the new and highly advanced Hawkeye 2000 standard. An air to air refueller would round out this force and make it one to reckon with indeed. With your potent SAM and AAA system, this would be a very tough nut to crack indeed. I really fail to see how removing this powerful Air Force would "improve" your air defences...

Mod edit: Path: Off topic discussion, get back on track please.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Buddy all the mentioned air defenses were not as comprehensive as my proposals, I propose something that would have 3 S-400 battalions 5 S-300 battalions and 10 TOR-M1 battalions cover each meter of ground, so when did anybody crack that kind of defense?

TBM or if u like MRBM are much better than cruise missiles because u can't intercept them where cruise missiles can be intercepted using SHORADs and radar guided AAA except over short distances like the russian yachont or the indian brahmos which are highly supersonic.

Mod edit: Path: Off topic discussion, get back on track please.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Airforces are only as good as their pilots not their equipment

so if our pilots can't hope to match NATO standards then tough luck

it's reality, SAM personnel are more cost effective regarding training than pilots, the pentagon addmitted that.

Mod edit: Path: Off topic discussion, get back on track please.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Airforces are only as good as their pilots not their equipment

so if our pilots can't hope to match NATO standards then tough luck

it's reality, SAM personnel are more cost effective regarding training than pilots, the pentagon addmitted that.

But its tough for SAM's to counter pentagon's EW systems,Anti-Radiation Missiles,Standoff Missiles,Stealth Bombers.... the list will not end.


Instead of adding those costly S-400 Battlions,I suggest u can add a Cheap AWACS supported by squardons of cheap and effective air-defence Fighters like Mig-29.Then Enemy will have to think in different ways before attacking a target in the country.
Interlinking these systems with each other is also important.

In addition S-300 systems can defend cities and strategic places
While Medium range Systems will Defend Airbases.
And short and Medium range SAM's will defend Army installations,Bases etc.

I'm egyptian so i'm talking about 5 battalions of S-400 , 8 battalions of S-300PMU2 , 20 battalions of BUK-M2, 30 mixed battalions of TOR-M1 and Tunguska.

I don't know why u are concentrating on only one type of weapon(SAM).
The enemy can easily devise a strategy to counter Single type of weapon.
Who in the world can afford 5 battalions of S-400 and 8 battaliiosn of S-300PMU.
The number depends on your requirements.Long range SAM are better for defending Cities and imp strategic buildings as they costly.

I think Australia and every country who can afford it should get TBM capability, it's so much cheaper and it simply rains firepower from the sky, the Iskander-E has a warhead of 700 kg approx., this means about 300 Kitolov-2M guided munitions could be loaded into a single warhead, which means that an armoured division targeted by a single Iskander will have a very bad time indeed

One thing,Ballistic Missiles(TBM's or whatever) and Cruise Missiles are only used to hit certain Places of high strategic value.
US uses tomahawk for Destroying Power production centers,Command and Communication centers etc places of high strategic value.
It would be absolute Foolish to use Such Costly systems against Armor or other low value weapon systems.
Instead of TBM's countries can uses MBRL like M270,Smerch,Cheap PGM like JDAM,Cluster munitions and FAE etc... for tactical purposes.
Only in exceptional(Emergency) cases Countries use TBM's(Non-Nuclear) for hitting low value weapons.
TBM's are not as cheap to be used for battlefield purpose.

TBM or if u like MRBM are much better than cruise missiles because u can't intercept them where cruise missiles can be intercepted using SHORADs and radar guided AAA except over short distances like the russian yachont or the indian brahmos which are highly supersonic

Who said u cant intercept Ballistic Missiles.
S-300PMU are some capable systems which can intercept ballistic Missiles of range 2000km.
And notorius Cruise Missiles(Exocet,Tomahawk,Styx etcWar Proven) can fly low to avoid Radar detection can hit the target from very long ranges.

Regarding higher level transports, the air defense i propose would make F-22s , F-35s and B-2s have a realy realy hard time, so what air assets could survive the on slaught of such an air defense, to give an idea of what i'm speaking about, I'm egyptian so i'm talking about 5 battalions of S-400 , 8 battalions of S-300PMU2 , 20 battalions of BUK-M2, 30 mixed battalions of TOR-M1 and Tunguska

S-300 and S-400 are mainly designed to counter US Stand-off Missiles like Like Harpoon Stand off Missile,JASSM,CALCM etc.
The more challenge they will face from Hypersonic Air-launched Missiles currently underdevelopment by US.

Mod edit: Path: Off topic discussion, get back on track please.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

1- S-400 and S-300 were designed with ( EW systems,Anti-Radiation Missiles,Standoff Missiles,Stealth Bombers ) specificaly in mind

2- when u have the force configuration i propose u can afford that

3- TBM will be employed against high value targets, if u have a high value targets as it's much safer and harder to defend against than aircrafts or cruise missiles.

4- intercepting ballistic missiles is harder than intercepting cruise missiles by orders of magnitude

5- S-300 and S-400 counter EVERY aerial target from 15m to 30 km in altitude and S-400 engages out to 400km in range

Mod edit: Path: Off topic discussion, get back on track please.

 

[ajay_ijn]

1- S-400 and S-300 were designed with ( EW systems,Anti-Radiation Missiles,Standoff Missiles,Stealth Bombers ) specificaly in mind

True,But do u think S-400/300 will alone Defend against the Whole Enemy Air-force??
Never,Long Range SAM's alone cannot defend against so many platforms.
U need Air-Defence Fighters,AWACS,Early Warning systems to defend the air-space or it will become easy for Enemy air-force to gain Air-Superiority.

when u have the force configuration i propose u can afford that

And ViceVersa,When u can afford that u will have that force configuration.
Frankly speaking how many third world countries can afford So many battalions of S-300/400.
Most them can afford only one or two systems which are used to defend Cities.

TBM will be employed against high value targets, if u have a high value targets as it's much safer and harder to defend against than aircrafts or cruise missiles.

As i said Ballistic Missiles are mostly used against Strategic Value Targets.
I can give u an example from the history.
As we know Germany Used V-2,First Ballistic Missile against Targets in London.
Thousands of V-2's were fired against London and some other targets but did not stop the german defeat.I agree Accuracy will not be very good for V-2.
V-2 was a very costly weapon for germany and did minimal losses to enemy compared to its price.
Coventional Ballitsic Missile(non-nuclear) as Such cannot be used against a country expecting heavy sucess.
Another example Scud,How many losses did US and its Allies faced from Scud Attacks?Minimal very minimal compared to its cost.

But When u equip Ballistic Missiles With Nuke or Chemical or Biological Warhead then u see the destruction they will make.Can end the human race itself.

intercepting ballistic missiles is harder than intercepting cruise missiles by orders of magnitude

True,It depends on range of Ballistic Missile.
Present BMD's are capable of defending 2000km Ballistic Missiles but ICBMs are the most difficult to intercept, u can say nearly impossible considering presently deployed Systems.
But compare the cost used to develop and produce a Ballistic Missile with Cruise Missiles.Some Cruise Missiles are lot cheaper.

S-300 and S-400 counter EVERY aerial target from 15m to 30 km in altitude and S-400 engages out to 400km in range

S-400 is not even deployed by Russian.
Regarding S-300PMU,I do think B-2's can give a bit challenge to them.

Mod edit: Path: Off topic discussion, get back on track please.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is getting way off topic. Please start a new thread if you want to keep this line of discussion.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

i think gf is right it's time for a new thread in the tactics section

 

[ajay_ijn]

Can Active protection Systems Enhance the tank protection by huge margin.
Arena, a Russian Active Counter measure system consists of a Radar,Interceptor Munition and Computer Controls.
But Arena System finally intercepts the incoming Missile or Projectile a 1 to 3 meters.
I suppose,these Systems will not have 100% kill porbability,so MBT still needs its ERA.
Some info on Active Protection Systems.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/3aps98.pdf
US has FCLAS(Full Spectrum Active Protection Close-In Shield) under development.
It consists of a short range grenade launcher,Each Grenade Munition would be fitted with Radar and an RF proximity fuse to intercept the target.
Germans are developing AWiSS(Active protection System Suite) which consist of a Ka band Radar,two grenade launcers with 360 degree coverage.
It can engage Targets at 10m and has response time of 355ms.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/awiss.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/fclas.htm
Another such system is trophy ADS developed by Israeli RAFAEL

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

So I think that Active Protection systems could put an end to the ATGM era, at least when they are fully operable.

 

[driftder]

Well the thread have shifted focus as the terms of discussion are not laid down. We are supposed to be discussing the pros and cons of facing down a MBT with a ATGM. Lets define the ATGM by class and weight of warhead for starters and then continue from there. Else we be running around the lallang again, catching grasshoppers.

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

We're basicly discussing ATGMs like Mokopa and Hermis which are comparable to Hellfire in firepower and range and can be deployed from land-based platform using ground radar guidance or laser designation to lock on targets.

 

[Awang se]

MOKOPA? Is any other country beside South Africa use this missile?

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

Nope not yet but soon by the looks of it's capabilities

 

[Pathfinder-X]

The question of whether tanks will be obsolete has been argued for several decades already. The appearence of anti-tank guns to ATGMs, from ATGMs to attack helicopters to CAS aircaft, these elements have added new threats to tanks on the battlefield. Yet tanks remained in the inventory in armies around the world in vast numbers.

Judging from the improvement in armour, active defence system, and evolved tactics in the past few decades I'd say we will be seeing lots of them in the decades to come.

 

[Aussie Digger]

We7. Do you have any info or any links to info on the land based versions of the Mokopa missile? I have searched and searched for it and cannot find any info at all on a ground based Mokopa missile system. Do actually KNOW if such a system exists or would you like one to? The manufacturer, Somchem, a division of Denel only describes the Mokopa as this;

"Mokopa: The Mokopa heavy long-range helicopter-launched anti-tank missile is currently under development. It has a reduced smoke composite boost-sustain propulsion system and a lethal tandem warhead designed to defeat new generation main battle tanks."

Obtained from: http://www.somchem.co.za/rockets.html

The only customer so far is South Africa which has employed this weapon on it's Rooivalk Attack Helo's. Malaysia is reportedly interested in the Rooivalk as well (and presumably the Mokopa) but has delayed any purchase due to a lack of funding...

I personally think the Tank will be around for a long, long time. Nothing has proved superior in it's ability to withstand fire, nothing on the battlefield can match it's firepower and nothing can maneuver about the battlefield like a tank. Tanks are far from invincible, but then so is everything else...