Gryphinator
Active Member
The range on them is pretty good so stealth may not be compromised. Weight-the bane of the grunt, maybe the issue to carry a good amount for effect. Even one blast could hold up a convoy for a good while though...
Depends which drone from them, the 40 has a mass of 190 grams and max take off of 300 grand so 110 grams won't do a lot IMO while the 155 has mass of 10kg and max take off weight of 30kg so may be able to do something with 20kg however what other aspects need to be taken into account and how it would affect it I can't say (ie: difference between something hovering and blowing up above you compared to a missile or shell launched and the kinetic energy combined with the explosive power its self).
May be a horse's for courses scenario.
The Ukrainians have lots of RPGs, the Swedes have given them AT4s & I think older Carl Gustafs, & I expect others have also given them similar weapons. Using a Javelin or NLAW on a soft-skinned lorry is a waste unless it's all you have, & I expect they have a lot more lower-grade weapons.
All reports I have read state that Russian forces have used the Ukrainian road networks for advances and supplies of logistics,I can appreciate that Javelin and N.L.A.W.S are not cheap to use, except when supplied in large numbers for free it might be a soft logistical underbelly damaged that causes plans to grind to a halt
JulioCompactus
Member
reminds me of the congressional inquiry into first gulf war when it was suggested that use of LGB bombs worth 300K was a waste on 50K Iraqi trucks and therefore was an Iraqi victory the pentagon response was to suggest had they asked the Iraqi truck drivers who won?
Indeed. 92 tanks may well have been destroyed in this conflict by varying direct and indirect fire means, which is one stat.
Other stats concern those so-called “obsolete” tanks, have advanced how far, destroying how much along the way?
No system is invincible and I don’t think anyone of sound mind has ever suggested this is the case…
But a slightly deeper look at the overall situation is probably called for in this case, particularly with respect to what might happen to forces that don’t equip themselves with competent heavy armoured capabilities and the levels of casualties / conflict you are prepared to accept…
How many Russian vehicles have RCWS? Being able to effectively identify and engage ATGW teams is critical, just look at the extensive urban warfare mods added to every type of vehicle in the west over the last 20 years.
There are articles about the expense of the Hawkei but looking at what is happening in Ukraine perhaps the extra cost of the coms and sensors etc. is worth it.
There are articles about the expense of the Hawkei but looking at what is happening in Ukraine perhaps the extra cost of the coms and sensors etc. is worth it.
Not to mention, this whole “tanks are obsolete” scenario is predicated upon allowing your enemy to entirely dictate the terms of engagement and simply enduring longer than them with a ‘death by a thousand pin-pricks’ strategy to wear them down over time.
It may well be successful eventually... But in the meantime you’ll endure horrendous loss of life, property and a wrecked country…
Hence my thought, we probably have to try to do something better than that…
Gryphinator
Active Member
Australian designed MANPADS on APDR. Found thanks to the MQ-28 article. Important development I think
adbr.com.au
Black Sky Aerospace flies Australian-designed missile | ADBR
Brisbane-based Black Sky Aerospace has successfully conducted initial integration of guidance and control on an Australian-designed missile. The missile – which Black Sky describes as being the same size as…
adbr.com.au
Australian designed MANPADS on APDR. Found thanks to the MQ-28 article. Important development I think
Black Sky Aerospace flies Australian-designed missile | ADBR
Brisbane-based Black Sky Aerospace has successfully conducted initial integration of guidance and control on an Australian-designed missile. The missile – which Black Sky describes as being the same size as…
Be interesting to see how it develops and compares to foreign equivalents. Australian industry can be very capable when given the chance just held back at times from stupid decisions by either civilians in government or military high command. Hell one of the past weapons designed built and even tested by a soldier in the army was a bullpup 7.62 before the Styer was even made let alone selected with apparently better aim, fewer parts and easier maintenance (he used parts from an AK-47 for it). KAL1 general purpose infantry rifle if any one curious about it. Oh what could have been...
Now is not the time to buy lots of heavy armoured vehicles | The Strategist
It’s disturbing to see $18–27 billion of Australian government money about to be spent on more than 400 heavily armoured ‘infantry fighting vehicles’ when we’re busily watching yet another conflict in which military vehicles like ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Seems like a lot of people are questioning the viability of armoured vehicles in the modern combat environment. I am yet to form an opinion but seeing multi-million dollar tanks being destroyed by relatively cheap anti-tank weapons is certainly does raise questions. Having said that I wouldn't get too carried away with the Russian experience.
Having an immobile armoured vehicle sitting out in the open because it ran out of fuel is really inviting disaster. However a formation of armoured vehicles in conjunction with proper logistics, air cover and ground troops would still be a pretty terrifying prospect.
The jury is out in my opinion.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I think some actual detailed analysis needs to occur on exactly how and why Russian armoured vehicles are being destroyed. Are they mostly being lost in contact with the enemy? Are they being destroyed when they are already inert and abandoned? Are they employing their vehicles the way we would? Are Ukrainian vehicles proving equally vulnerable? Are their vehicles actually as survivable as a Trophy equipped M1A2 SEP(V)3 or an Iron Fist equipped Lynx/Redback? I suspect we can ask the Israelis what Trophy did for their Merkavas after introduction...
At the moment it's probably early to crunch those numbers, but nobody has really tried AFAIK. If a new or additional vulnerability is present does that mean divesting them is a wise choice? or can/should the vulnerability be covered by honing some other part of the joint force? I'd like to see these questions answered before sweeping (knee jerk) force structure changes get made...
At the moment it's probably early to crunch those numbers, but nobody has really tried AFAIK. If a new or additional vulnerability is present does that mean divesting them is a wise choice? or can/should the vulnerability be covered by honing some other part of the joint force? I'd like to see these questions answered before sweeping (knee jerk) force structure changes get made...
Last edited:
Aussie optimist
Member
I fail to understand all this talk of armoured vehicles being a waste of money. What do the so called experts expect, we load our diggers in a mini van and race into combat, so as not to waste money?Now is not the time to buy lots of heavy armoured vehicles | The Strategist
It’s disturbing to see $18–27 billion of Australian government money about to be spent on more than 400 heavily armoured ‘infantry fighting vehicles’ when we’re busily watching yet another conflict in which military vehicles like ...
Seems like a lot of people are questioning the viability of armoured vehicles in the modern combat environment. I am yet to form an opinion but seeing multi-million dollar tanks being destroyed by relatively cheap anti-tank weapons is certainly does raise questions. Having said that I wouldn't get too carried away with the Russian experience.
Having an immobile armoured vehicle sitting out in the open because it ran out of fuel is really inviting disaster. However a formation of armoured vehicles in conjunction with proper logistics, air cover and ground troops would still be a pretty terrifying prospect.
The jury is out in my opinion.
I would love to know how these individuals would feel if it was one of their loved ones, being put in harms way without the best protection money can buy.
Anti amour weapons have been a problem since warfare began and have progressed as technology has improved. As such ways are devised by very learned people to defeat such challenges and on both side of the spectrum.
I fail to see why all this hysteria regarding armoured vehicles based on second rate 80’s vintage equipment being defeated by the latest anti-armour weapons.
I think everyone just needs to calm down and trust that smart people are making the recommendations.
Yep, as I'd observed before the pattern of losses (captured/abandoned matching or exceeding destroyed...) tells us the issues are far more morale and logistics than tanks and IFVs being useless.
However, I do think the success of Ukrainian drones does provide us with one meaningful lesson... We need more short/medium range air defence then we currently have (old RBS-70s) or are likely to have in the near future (NASAMS), and that SHORADs capability needs to be able to keep up with the maneuver units in order to provide close AA support.
Aussie optimist
Member
What the Russians are doing is this centuries equivalent to the original attempts to deal with machine guns. Human wave until the enemy runs out of bullets. Who would have known combined arms, better planning etc. would be the answer.
Actually thinking on it, isn't what Russia is doing similar to what the US did early in the Koran War. Motorised advance, deep into enemy territory, obliterate any conventional target they see, have the enemy infiltrate behind the advance and inflict a war of attrition.
the road runner
Active Member
A good ISR network will do wonders for a MBT/IFV on the move.So would armed drones flying over watch for moving vehicles. Something the Russians have lacked. How would a Russian convoy have preformed if it had a large number of armed drones flying overhead who's sole purpose was to destroy Anti Tank teams.What if they had an ISR of western standard networked to a Switchblade 300 that are mounted on IFV?
And even a Modern APS system such as Trophy mounted on their tanks and IFV would have prevented a number of vehicles from being destroyed...
How about a future fleet of loitering Munitions that are launched from IFV that provide over watch for a convoy of vehicles ,But can land, have their batteries recharged and then be reused until they are used to destroy a target? This is the type of technology that we will see in the future
I honestly do not think the Russian/Ukraine war is a tell tale sign of the extinction of MBT/IFV. The West would have had different tactics and technology to fight this type of war.
Those 40 mile columns would not have lasted long if NATO or the West was fighting this war. I can assure you it would not have been Javelin/ATGM that destroyed them...
Have you ever heard of MBT/IFV becoming obsolete because they were destroyed by a laser Guided Bomb/ Artillery or even an IED/Mine ?
But hey Tanks/IFV are obsolete now because ATGM destroyed them ..OK if you say so....
Lets not forget what equipment is preforming in Ukraine...Its Western equipment. It becomes a moot point if your enemy's do not have access to this equipment.I doubt Australia would be going to War with another Western nation..Politics would cut a deal to prevent that from happening.
EDIT..What comes first the horse or the cart? We will purchase IFV and into the future start hanging drones/Switchblade?/Air Defense Missile/APS and other future technology that will help make our IFV counter what we will face in an enemy
And even a Modern APS system such as Trophy mounted on their tanks and IFV would have prevented a number of vehicles from being destroyed...
How about a future fleet of loitering Munitions that are launched from IFV that provide over watch for a convoy of vehicles ,But can land, have their batteries recharged and then be reused until they are used to destroy a target? This is the type of technology that we will see in the future
I honestly do not think the Russian/Ukraine war is a tell tale sign of the extinction of MBT/IFV. The West would have had different tactics and technology to fight this type of war.
Those 40 mile columns would not have lasted long if NATO or the West was fighting this war. I can assure you it would not have been Javelin/ATGM that destroyed them...
Have you ever heard of MBT/IFV becoming obsolete because they were destroyed by a laser Guided Bomb/ Artillery or even an IED/Mine ?
But hey Tanks/IFV are obsolete now because ATGM destroyed them ..OK if you say so....
Lets not forget what equipment is preforming in Ukraine...Its Western equipment. It becomes a moot point if your enemy's do not have access to this equipment.I doubt Australia would be going to War with another Western nation..Politics would cut a deal to prevent that from happening.
EDIT..What comes first the horse or the cart? We will purchase IFV and into the future start hanging drones/Switchblade?/Air Defense Missile/APS and other future technology that will help make our IFV counter what we will face in an enemy
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There has been a lot of talk about how Good, bad or indifferent the Russian AFVs and opposing Anti-Armour weapons are but all weapons are only as good as the Soldiers operating them.
Is the average Russian Soldier in the Ukraine
1/ Highly Trained using modern technology in using his own Weapons and battlefield tactics.
2/ Disciplined both self and imposed.
3/ Fit and in good Medical condition
4/ Motivated, does he want to be there or is he wondering What the F*** am I doing in this Hell Hole
5/ Is he getting Food, Water, Ammo and Medical supplies on a regular basis
6/ Is a decent Command and Control in place
7/ Has his equipment been properly maintained in good working order
8/ Does he know what his and his Units job is
JulioCompactus
Member
It is certainly my experience that Defence academics inhabit a black and white world where they constantly search for the silver Bullet system. So the RAN should be nothing but submarines and patrol boats because subs are great. Army funds should be hived off to buy 5 more sqns of fast jets for RAAF because fast jets are just the solution to almost anything and Army gets light infantry and bicycles.
Nah, just buy 50 B-21s and we will be the kings of the world. The bomber will always get through!