Romanian modern tanks

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

personally don't see the advantages of LOSAT. It is not a fire and forget system it needs constant input to direct the missile on target. And now with the heavy use of thermal smoke it will render infrared targetting systems completely useless.

1. at about 4000m the projectile needs less than a second to reach the target. that's why it's called Line Of Sight Anti Tank. LOSAT also doesn't correct its position during flight, because flight time is too short.

QUOTE

it takes about 10 minutes to reload its 4 ready-to-fire missiles.

LOSAT is still in development. only prototypes have been used so far. you can fire the missiles from a jeep or BDRM whatever, while it is still way out of the range of a tank and retreat. 1 projectile is supposed to cost around 3-400 000$ and a hit ratio of 1:5 or so is expected. compare this to the cost of a tank ...

[PanzerKing]

Damn there is a lot of American propaganda! I thought only one tank had been taken out so far...I wonder how many tanks were really knocked out in the first war?

[cuski]

QUOTE

1. LOSAT also doesn't correct its position during flight, because flight time is too short.

Ummm, yes it does... extract from the Lockheed-Martin fact-sheet PDF:

QUOTE

[...]The missile receives guidance updates from the fire control system aboard the launch vehicle until the target is hit.

QUOTE

LOSAT is still in development. only prototypes have been used so far. you can fire the missiles from a jeep or BDRM whatever, while it is still way out of the range of a tank and retreat. 1 projectile is supposed to cost around 3-400 000$ and a hit ratio of 1:5 or so is expected. compare this to the cost of a tank ...

1 out of 5? That would make it what, a waste of $1,600,000 for every 5 targets engaged? When a tank gunner can succesfully engage 10 targets in less than 2 minutes (with an average engage time of 3 seconds) with 100% accuracy? Not acceptable IMO.

Especially when the whole attack sequence, from detection to destruction with the LOSAT is less than 5 seconds, as advertised. Not less than 1 second.

And one huge problem remains. It's completely useless offensively. Really, we are comparing apples and oranges here. LOSAT is developed as a pure anti-tank weapon, when tanks have the flexibility of being offense/defense platforms. But with a succesful engagement ratio of 1:5 I truly don't see how it will render tanks obsolete. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me on this.

You also have to consider as a threat the new generation of T-80 which, through their 125mm cannon are able to fire AP, HEAT and also missiles from a stand-off range of approximately 4,000m. To me, that is a more flexible platform than the LOSAT.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

1 out of 5? That would make it what, a waste of $1,600,000 for every 5 targets engaged? When a tank gunner can succesfully engage 10 targets in less then 2 minutes (with an average engage time of 3 seconds) with 100% accuracy? Not acceptable IMO.

at a range of 10km?

i said the flight time is less than 1 sec. at 4km range (or 2 sec at 10km, that's why i don't see why it should be corrected in flight). when i read the data sheet (not from lockheed btw. there might be more than 1 version, it's still experimental after all) they said something like 4.5-5 km/s velocity at a range of about 10km. no tank today as a range which is comparable.

it costs 1600 000$ worst case, to destroy a tank which costs how much? leopard2 is around 40 000 000€ or so. don't know exactly and i'm too lazy to bother to look up the exact figure.

and why useless offensivly? you put 4-5 launchers on a humvee or any other fast recon vehicle and give it the posibility to engage a tank well outside of its operational range with plenty of time to retreat.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

LOSAT is developed as a pure anti-tank weapon, when tanks have the flexibility of being offense/defense platforms. But with a succesful engagement ratio of 1:5 I truly don't see how it will render tanks obsolete. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me on this.

i never claimed it is anything else than a AT weapon. it offers a low tech alternative for tank annihilation for countries which cannot afford competitive tanks to counter a todays MBTs. if you can use cars, jeeps, humvees...any recon vehicle as a viable anti-tank unit which is able to engage a tank at twice its range with a cost of about 1/40 or whatever it might very well render the tank obsolete.

[cuski]

QUOTE

at a range of 10km? i said the flight time is less than 1 sec. at 4km range (or 2 sec at 10km, that's why i don't see why it should be corrected in flight). when i read the data sheet (not from lockheed btw. there might be more than 1 version, it's still experimental after all) they said something like 4.5-5 km/s  velocity at a range of about 10km. no tank today as a range which is comparable.

Assuming that the targeting system is able to show targets at 10kms. But guess what? Even the new generation FLIRs are not able to show accurately targets past 4000km. After that everything becomes a blur and identification is almost impossible. Nice publicity, but really useless until targeting systems evolve.

QUOTE

it costs 1600 000$ worst case, to destroy a tank which costs how much? leopard2 is around 40 000 000? or so. don't know exactly and i'm too lazy to bother to look up the exact figure.

The tank order for Leopard from the Greek ministry was of $2 billion dollars. The order was supposedly for 246 Leopard 2A5 tanks including 24 recovery vehicles, 12 bridge-laying vehicles and 12 driver-trainer vehicles. Not considering the latter, this brings the cost of a 2A5 to approximately $8 000 000 which would be a salvo of 20 LOSAT missiles. That could easily be worth one day of firing.

QUOTE

and why useless offensivly? you put 4-5 launchers on a humvee or any other fast recon vehicle and give it the posibility to engage a tank well outside of its operational range with plenty of time to retreat.

Great, how are you going to deal with infantry? Especially considering that a .50 cal will easily penetrate the thin armor? Hell, a sniper with a .50 cal Barrett could do the job.

[dead-cat]

ok since we have a discussion here i did bother to check some figures. found a quote claiming that a leo unit is about 4.6 mio €, prolly w/o maintenance.

found, among other this:

QUOTE

Testing at White Sands Missile Range, NM examined the launch effects of the LOSAT on an expanded-capacity HMMWV. Under developmental test conditions, the missile is capable of defeating any known tank it hits. Test firing of the LOSAT missile in a non-tactical configuration on top of a HMMWV has shown all launch effects to fall within the Army's acceptable ranges for human factor limits. Data gathered were extensive both inside and outside of the vehicle. Measurements were made of shock and g-load, on crash test dummies, and flash, toxic gases, pressure, and sound in and outside the vehicle. Numerous operational performance issues must be addressed in future testing – either within the ACTD or in subsequent formal OT&E covered by a TEMP.   The LOSAT equipped Expanded Capacity HMMWV has a combat weight of approximately 12,000 pounds. The system has an effective range of several miles and is \"near fire and forget.\"   LOSAT consists of kinetic energy missiles and a second-generation FLIR/video acquisition sensor mounted on an air- mobile, heavy HMMWV chassis. The LOSAT weapon system will help remedy the forced-entry/early-entry force lethality shortfall against heavy armor because it can deploy with both forces.   The key advantages of the LOSAT system are the tremendous overmatch lethality of the KEM, which defeats all predicted future armored combat vehicles, and its deployability. The LOSAT weapon system also provides increased survivability for the operator and countermeasure effectiveness.

when i first read about LOSAT in 2000 i remember having read something like 3-400 000$ cost/unit can't find any price quotes anymore. they might be obsolete as well, i don't know. anyhow it looks like it was field tested this year in june.

QUOTE

Great, how are you going to deal with infantry? Especially considering that a .50 cal will easily penetrate the thin armor? Hell, a sniper with a .50 cal Barrett could do the job.

as i said, LOSAT proides you with a low cost AT capability at a level you couldn't afford by buying MBTs.
if the tank has been taken out by LOSAT before he could provide support he's gone. once the system works as expected the tank cannot provide infantry support anymore if any LOSAT unit is in the area by the risk of being disabled.

[cuski]

QUOTE

as i said, LOSAT proides you with a low cost AT capability at a level you couldn't afford by buying MBTs. if the tank has been taken out by LOSAT before he could provide support he's gone. once the system works as expected the tank cannot provide infantry support anymore if any LOSAT unit is in the area by the risk of being disabled.

Obviously, you haven't served in an armoured unit... Tanks are not supposed to provide support for the infantry... this is why you have now IFVs such as the Bradley, Marder, Warrior and BMP. The US army designed their tanks and tactics as infantry supporting units in WW2 and they suffered tremendous casualties when met with german armour. Ever since then, they learned their lesson and changed their tactics.

Once again, you are making the assumption that - when used as an offensive force - the OPFOR for the LOSAT will be out in the open exposing themselves. Well, given the lethality of aerial threats on today's battlefield, tanks stay concealed most of the time. When placed in a defensive position, they usually stay in a turret-down position until the target is within firing range - maintaining observation either through the commander or optics (in the case of the M1A2 and Leopard 2A4+). Once the target is in range, the tank pops up in a hull-down position, takes a shot, backs up in turret-down position and displaces to another turret down position. At all times, the largest target that presents itself is only the turret and only for a couple of seconds.

I have served in Lord Strathcona's Horse Armoured Regiment as a Leopard 1A3 gunner, had the fortune of evaluating a Leopard 2A4 and trust me... LOSAT will not render tanks obsolete. Same thing has been said when the attack helicopters showed up.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

I have served in Lord Strathcona's Horse Armoured Regiment as a Leopard 1A3 gunner, had the fortune of evaluating a Leopard 2A4 and trust me... LOSAT will not render tanks obsolete. Same thing has been said when the attack helicopters showed up.

again. if LOSAT is able to see you (IR, radar whatever) it can effectivly attack you from ranges around 10km with a projectile that can defeat any present armour. if you tell me the attacker leaves a thermal signature then so do you, unless you don't generate more heat than the absorbers can handle.
LOSAT is about shooting a projectile that can kill every tank that exists today. LOSAT isn't about detecting the target. of course LOSAT units *can* be detected as well. if they're on a humvee they're a soft target which makes them vulnerable to artillery, if available. but nothing limits their use on say bradleys. maybe, if the system proves itself (and first steps seem to have been taken) there is a portable version for infantery also.

whatever means of deployment you choose, it increases the risk up to an almost unacceptable level for expensive armored units like MBTs. it doesn't solve your tracking issues, it doesn't solve your tactical issues with infantery support and it doesn't cook and wash dishes either (you get my point). if enough armies deploy it en masse it will become very dangerous for tanks to operate even against a low tech opponent unless you increase the combat range of a tank to match the range of LOSAT.
so either you develop countermeasueres agains LOSAT (and so far there arn't any. LOSAT i said, NOT target aquisition) or you stop deploying tanks because they'll get shot up at an unacceptable rate.

QUOTE

Obviously, you haven't served in an armoured unit... Tanks are not supposed to provide support for the infantry...

wether i served in an armoured unit or i just played "steel beasts" is irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.
the tank was actualy invented as an infantery support weapon. and early PzIVs were pure infantery support tanks as well. however, i agree that the main role of the tank is to engage enemy armored units.

QUOTE

have served in Lord Strathcona's Horse Armoured Regiment as a Leopard 1A3 gunner, had the fortune of evaluating a Leopard 2A4 and trust me... LOSAT will not render tanks obsolete.

if you enjoyed it, i'm glad for you that you could experience this. still i don't see why the fact that you were a tank gunner makes your argument about LOSAT less speculative than mine. none of us saw it so far. actually few ppl did, but of those who did, most claimed that there is no countermeasure against it so far. as an engineer i find the idea intresting that with kinetic energy alone you can go past any armour defensive solution that has been developed in the last 10 years. i'm not a tank enthusiast and not a tank-hater. at best i'm occasionally a plastic tank modeller, albeit with a modest skill. i'm not in favour of scrapping tanks. if it was up to me, i'd rather scrap the entire armed forces alltogether and spend the money on something actually usefull.

'nuff for today, it's 2am

[inahurry]

The most terrible weapon is the politician in power. Check Romania's case today. We don't need the best defensive/offensive system in the galaxy, even it's for free, what use for it when there's no weapon to protect us from politicians like these. Ok, someone could argue we're a country under occupation but is there really any country left with real independence? I believe Russia, despite tremendous financial problems, still develops excellent new weapons, so? Could a Russian sincerely argue those weapons or the brilliant engineers who made them protect them from the homemade economic disaster Gaidar and the like created? Wars were and are extremely expensive adventures, even more today when the war 10 years from now probably is won or lost now and only partly because how well or bad is the weapons industry and research. Check for the money bag, if it leaks a lot then the future wa is already lost.

Back to the on-going topic. I don't think tanks will become obsolete so soon. For the simple reason the projectile vs armor race takes place in the C4I era. I was browsing through some of the Israeli projections for the near future and while the Merkava 4 is probably a very good tank I was more interested the way its combat role is to be increased by being an APC, data gathering and transmitting unit, part of a real time centralizing of the on field information. Optical and electronical data gathering that is to be integrated with the infantryman gear will make of any grunt the eye of the central command. This with the already integrated systems of air and artillery support can make the outcome unpredictable. Complex systems may prove vulnerable but I wouldn't dispatch the tank so quickly. I think tanks are still cost effective, more than aircrafts anyway. You can't judge the efficiency of air supremacy when you have US vs Iraq but with roughly equal opponents it is far easier to replace a tank crew than a pilot, costs and production rates aside. Just my two cents. I enjoyed the posts, found them very interesting so keep the "duel" going, folks.