New Russian Anti-Tank “Trick” overcoming ADS

[Abraham Gubler]

having decades worth of upgrade packages for the M1 series tanks and forced to use them due to the fact that we cannot get our FCS program to give us a capable tank just shows at the current time that we still need heavy armor

OK let me repeat myself. The US Army will have two sorts of mechanised brigades post 2014. One equipped with upgreaded legacy vehicles (the heavy BCT) and the other equipped with XM1200 vehciles (the FCS BCT).

Now if the US Army's leadership was concerned about the combat viability of the XM1200 platform then why will they be deploying a formation equipped entirely with that platform? While there will be Heavy BCTs in exsistance they will be operating in their corner of the battlefield while the XM1200s operate somewhere else.

Surely if the M1 MBT was so vital to future tactical operations each XM1200 BCT would have at least a company or battalion of M1s on their ORBAT? But they don't. The long term plan to keep M1s in service beyond 2020 is not driven by tactical needs but by budgetary needs. The rate of production of the XM1200 will not be high enough to replace all the M1s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Read again what Waylander and Kato said.... So Waylander certainly "doesn't smoke things unknown to you" but shows a broader understanding of the influences of terrain on military operations.

nfloorl:

Waylander's point about different frontages for terrain was in no way a counter to my argument about the very high levels of SFM rounds need to achieve the kind of over target density of skeets to defeat an active protection system. It was just a bit of smoke and mirrors good enough to distract a few from the central argument that the required density was ridiculous.

A mechanised combat team (tank company) in urban terrain will have a frontage of 500m and a depth of 1km. Yes that is contracted from in the open field (desert, plains, etc). But so what? Urban areas tend to be things that a peer army would like to defend from the marauding enemy tanks. We are not talking about Hamas here with a force of modern SPH and SFM rounds.

The whole point of SFM is to break the assault - ie Assault Breakers (the original program that developed them). To take the steam out of a enemy tank force when they are most dangerous - that is maneuvering at high speed - usually something in open terrain.

 

[kato]

This is not restricted to urban areas. Hills, River Valleys, Irrigation canals, Forests, Swamps, Villages - these are all terrain features that will channel any force into tighter dispersal, and in Europe these are the norm - not something an OPFOR can avoid just to be soaked in urban terrain later. Remote-laid minefields, planned demolition, planned flooding and other such military measures will further complicate the issue for an OPFOR.
There simply is no wide-open terrain in most NATO nations, and to only plan for the rare case of desert warfare isn't exactly the foremost thing on at least European NATO planners.

Btw, the original "Assault Breakers" were developed to combat enemy tank concentrations and high-value area targets behind the front line. Not to take the wind out of an enemy spearhead rushing at your forces.

 

[Waylander]

First I am a little bit dissapointed by your stile of discussion.
I am defenitely not smoking some weird stuff...

There are many variables in defeating moving targets with artillery fire. It’s not impossible but at the far more typical combat situation (as opposed to close range training missions) of deep fires from STA inputs rather than nice convenient in front of the FO OP it requires a lot of rounds to make sure your cover where the enemy force is going to be.

For sure one is going to have a hard time targeting a force which wildly maneuvers in open terrain.
But usually an armored spearhead is heading for a certain objective and is more or less channelled and restricted by the terrain.
All this together with the modern targeting capabilities provided by the FISTs networked into the artillery system (Be it ADLER II or some other system) drastically enhances the capability to hit moving armor formations.

OK so fighting tanks in the Middle East isn’t relevant? I don’t know what you’re smoking if you think that but you can count me out. Besides the orders of magnitude of SFM against APS vehicles able to intercept skeets are so high that even with lower tank unit frontages the overkill will remain.

You are twisting the words in my mouth.
I never said that fighting in the middle east is not relevant anymore.
Kato already beat me again with the answer to this.
Nearly all NATO countries and the bordering countries don't have this kind of terrain. Heck even the rest of the world normally doesn't have this kind of terrain As I said NORMALLY one cannot hope for having the kind of open terrain you like to use as a reference.

We have only been talking about SFM rounds. You may have noticed my conclusion is that against a tank with APS able to defeat skeets DPICM is a far more effective option. It’s plain and simple anyway SFM tactics are not about high density fires to overwhelm some kind of active defence. I’m often amazed at how far people will go to argue a point just because they think they have some kind of ownership with that point.

What makes a round carrying DPICMs less vulnerable to the proposed ADS?
If it is able to interecept a SMARt it should also be able to interecept a DPICM round before it opens up.
Not to talk of the problems you run into when you want to make a counterassault through an area where DPICM has been used before.

Neither are issues caused by over ambition but specification changes from the user. The weight went up to add more armour. The XM1202 mounted combat system (MCS, ie tank) has an extra crewman because the users are more comfortable with driver-gunner-commander, rather than pilot-battle captain. Once they realise with the autonomous driving capability they can operate with only two the third will probably become a sub-unit or unit command position.

You counter my argument with "The weight went up to add more armour"?
Why should I believe that the weight right now is high enough to offer the needed passive protection? In the end they already said that before they had to make the MCS heavier.
They also said that 2 men are enough before they readded the 3rd man.
I am far from believing that we are going to see autonomous driving capabilities at high speeds in rough terrain with a tracked vehicle very soon.
It's not like the annual UGV championships show anything remotely capable of doing this.
BTW, you were the one who said that they save room because of the 2 men crew. One of your argument for the MCS being able to carry some heavy armor. Now after it is clear that they are going to have a 3 men crew you say that they eventually will use the 3rd place as some sort of command position. This doesn't reduces the need to protect 3 crewmembers instead of 2...

That has nothing to do with capability of FCS; it’s a completely wrong argument in fact and even reasoning. It’s because the US Army doesn’t have enough money to replace all Heavy BCTs with FCS BCTs. If it was an issue of tactical capability as you suggest then all heavy and FCS BCTs would be mixed to provide both M1, M2 and XM1200 vehicles.

Cost is also a relevant factor for a successfull AFV.
They promise alot. I still doubt that the FCS family is able to make these promises come true especially within a reasonable timeframe and budget.
What good is it to field a goldplated vehicle family too late and to pricey which may be revolutionary in some areas when having evolutionary successors the current fleet of vehicles may give you a very capable vehicle in time and in budget.

How many percent of the needed technologies for FCS are ready by now...?

 

[eckherl]

OK let me repeat myself. The US Army will have two sorts of mechanised brigades post 2014. One equipped with upgreaded legacy vehicles (the heavy BCT) and the other equipped with XM1200 vehciles (the FCS BCT).

Now if the US Army's leadership was concerned about the combat viability of the XM1200 platform then why will they be deploying a formation equipped entirely with that platform? While there will be Heavy BCTs in exsistance they will be operating in their corner of the battlefield while the XM1200s operate somewhere else.

Surely if the M1 MBT was so vital to future tactical operations each XM1200 BCT would have at least a company or battalion of M1s on their ORBAT? But they don't. The long term plan to keep M1s in service beyond 2020 is not driven by tactical needs but by budgetary needs. The rate of production of the XM1200 will not be high enough to replace all the M1s.

Okay, this is something that I have posted on this site a year or so ago, yes they will have two seperate types of fighting Brigades, one will be equipped with FCS type systems and the other for what we would deem heavy consisting of older generation upgraded platforms. But this is not how the original concept was sold to congress nor was this the intent of the U.S Army. Bottom line is that we still have aways to go with this program and I am finally satisfied that we will get additional parts of the program out to the soldiers for testing and evaluations, it is a good concept with excellant advancements in vehicle capabilities and I am one of those that hope that the program can continue and be emplemented, but just incase we will have to depend on vehicles like the 70 ton monsters in current use, it is just not the cost but something that is proven and still capable of defeating a potential opponent.

 

[gf0012-aust]

General observation:

One of the (many) problems of the internet is that tone and intent are not always conveyed in the manner intended.

So that there is no confusion it is important that all remember that robust opinions are not seen as dismissive of others who are just as qualified in casting comment.

This is especially important where the Defence Professionals are involved as you all have varying degrees of expertise on subject matter.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

First I am a little bit dissapointed by your stile of discussion.

You are twisting the words in my mouth.

Now you know how I feel...

What makes a round carrying DPICMs less vulnerable to the proposed ADS?
If it is able to interecept a SMARt it should also be able to interecept a DPICM round before it opens up.
Not to talk of the problems you run into when you want to make a counterassault through an area where DPICM has been used before.

As I posted from the very beginning the intercept profile for the HK APS against the SFM skeet would be so when it has deployed from the 155mm carrier round and is in low altitude floating under its parachute or on its stub wings searching for a target. This is where it is vulnerable to attack not just from its slow speed and low altitude but because a skeet has no high hardness exterior walls and exposed sensors and flight systems (parachute, stub wings) vital to carry out its mission.

The base eject carrier round that deploys two skeets or 88 DPICM bomblets (aka grenades) (eg M483) is a much, much harder target for any HK APS or even C-RAM system. This is because of its flight profile and rigidity of the exterior walls. The ejection height for SFMs is usually over 1km altitude and These rounds tend to be made of aluminum to save weight but are still strong enough to be fired through a gun bore. Ejection height is variable depending on required density of bomblets.

As to the FCS I give up trying to persuade a 2001 Holden driver that the new model 2009 Ford has better features. For Germany perhaps this should be translated to BMW for Holden and Audi for Ford.

 

[Waylander]

Yeah right, the auto model is a good example.

Let's look at the NLOS-C and the proposed Donar from GDLS and KMW.
The NLOS-C has alot of advantages over the Donar with it's years old PzH2000 technology...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yeah right, the auto model is a good example.

Let's look at the NLOS-C and the proposed Donar from GDLS and KMW.
The NLOS-C has alot of advantages over the Donar with it's years old PzH2000 technology...

Yeah it does. Apart from the hugely better vehicle system (FCS MGV vs Uhlan) the mission system has completely automatic resupply (can't do that with PzH2000 technology), laser ignition, JTRS CNR, self defence systems (APS, RCWS) and so on.

 

[Firn]

Thanks for the timely intervention gf0012-aust

As I posted from the very beginning the intercept profile for the HK APS against the SFM skeet would be so when it has deployed from the 155mm carrier round and is in low altitude floating under its parachute or on its stub wings searching for a target. This is where it is vulnerable to attack not just from its slow speed and low altitude but because a skeet has no high hardness exterior walls and exposed sensors and flight systems (parachute, stub wings) vital to carry out its mission.

Although so far no systems has demostrated the ability to shoot down the skeet, it is certainly a real possibility to give an ADS with radar the ability to shoot down a skeet with a fast rocket or grenade. I would expect such a capability to mature soon enough.

However their might be a rather effective CCM against interceptors. The currently fielded skeets have self-stabilizing flightsystems (stubs, etc.) which deaccelerate it and then allow it to search for targets. Given that the skeets (like SMArt) are already equipped with radar they should be able to detect the active ADS as it is emitting very shortly after leaving the container. Let us asssume it detects an active source on the ground within striking range. If the skeet gets equipped with a small lateral rocket booster (sacrificing some space) it could rapidly change course (depending on the power of the booster and the whole size of the skeet) in a rather unpredictable manner and self-stabilize again. This evasion-stabilize-search loop could be repeated several times at different times. The AFV with the ADS (emitting radar) is of course the primary target and is possibly engaged.

Depending on the capabilities of the sensor suite the evasion-stabilize-search loop can also be initiated by the input provided by the fused sensors. A launched rocket leaves a very clear IR signature, a rather fast grenade a clear muzzleflash. Such signatures could than trigger the ESS-loop. So it is a really exciting match between CM, CCM and CCCM.


BTW:

Let's look at the NLOS-C and the proposed Donar from GDLS and KMW.
The NLOS-C has alot of advantages over the Donar with it's years old PzH2000 technology...

The NLOS-C should have some great advantages, part intrinsic, part non-intrinsic and thus addable to other systems. Only the inferior range of the L38 is a clear disadvantage compared to the long L52s. Isn't Donar also autoloading, btw?

 

[kato]

Autoloading yes, Auto-resupply no. I.e. you can't dock a resupply vehicle onto the back of a Pzh/AGM/Donar and have it automatically reload the magazines.

 

[Firn]

Autoloading yes, Auto-resupply no. I.e. you can't dock a resupply vehicle onto the back of a Pzh/AGM/Donar and have it automatically reload the magazines.

Ah, ok. Auto-supply can be of great value in a manuever battle with a great deal of artillery duels. Given their specific terrain and tactical/strategical environment it is no wonder that Southkorea has built for the K-9 155mm L52 howitzer the K-10 Carrier to automate the whole process. Do they also field container rounds with smart submunitions?

 

[Waylander]

You are talking aboutb thinks like RCWS, APS and network capabilities as something which is integral parts of the NLOS-C platform while they are not.

One can put the same JTRS CNR (Or any other battlefield command and management system), APS and RCWS onto every platform one wants.
The army is implementing them into legacy platforms so there is nothing which stops them from doing it with any other artillery system than NLOS-C.

And while I agree that fully automatic resupply is an advantage higher RoF and bigger range are also advantages.

I am not saying that the NLOS-C is utterly useless or something like that.
I am just stating that it is not close to being as revolutionary as the army sold the whole FCS programm to the government and public.

 

[Feanor]

Independently the NLOS-C is not all that revolutionary, but as part of the FCS is a large step forward.