End of the Tank Age?

JAVELIN ANTI-ARMOUR MISSILE, USA


I like the javelin its another fire and forget anti-tank weapon. The Javelin anti-tank missile has a range of 2,500m. Not as good as the other weapon but you dont have to lug around a 120mm motar it only weighs 22.3 kg. So it can be carried a fired by one soldier. The tandem warhead is fitted with two shaped charges: a precursor warhead to initiate explosive reactive armour and a main warhead to penetrate base armour.

I have a friend in the Marines that is trained to do just this type of task and said that fire and forget weapons are a god send compared to the old wire guide missiles. You would be surprised how fast a tank can zero in on a thermal flash and put a round on target and if your still steering a missile you could be in for a world of hurt.

Here is what the next generation of US light armored vehicles might be it will use an Electro Magnetic Gun.

The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control are developing an Electromagnetic (EM) Gun System. The objective of the EM GunTM Program is to demonstrate the feasibility of an electromagnetic gun meeting the expectations for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) main armament and is primarily focused on technology demonstration. The Army EM gun applied research program is contracted through 2007 and is organized in two phases. During Phase I, 2000-2005, the program is centered on a medium caliber gun demonstration, demonstrating critical technologies that support the rotating power supply development, and demonstrating a single rotating power supply. During the Phase II, 2005-2007, Missiles and Fire Control will integrate the EM technologies into an armament test-bed for demonstration in 2007 utilizing a large bore gun integrated with a power supply system that is comprised of two counter-rotating power generation alternators with support elements.

Tanks aren't dead yet and probably won't be for a long time because they change with the times, and the most modern tanks are so survivable and deadly. The Abrams for example is nearly indestructible. This makes them indispensible for infantry support, or assault and defense. The problem with tanks is they are highly vulnerable in urban areas. They are logistics hogs. They take tons (literally!) of maintenance. They are slow to mobilize. They are vulnerable to anti-tank infantry weapons, and aircraft, especially choppers.

Well, the enemy can't get choppers up if the US owns the air, so that problem is pretty null. Anti-tank infantry weapons such as guided missiles and RPGs are a big problem. However, the Abrams is very defendable against RPGs, and not bad against anti-tank infantry weapons.

Both the RPG and guided missiles rely on a shaped charge to cut through a tank's armor. The force of the explosion is directed into a hot stream of fire. The RPG for instance can cut through 14 inches of rolled homogenous steel. Recently, researchers have come up with a means of disrupting the hot fire stream from a shaped charge using electricity. Also, small mini-guns that use radar to detect incoming missiles, like tiny versions of the US Navy's ship missile defense, have been in the works for tanks, as well as anti-warhead lasers. Since all aircraft and infantry anti-tank weapons rely on shaped charge warheads to penetrate armor, then the electric armor defense along with the mini-gun defense help nullify those attacks.

In the future, tanks will probably carry the same lethality they have had since WW2 - a main gun, an onboard machine gun, and cupola machine guns.

However, amped up with onboard anti-warhead defenses and electric armor, they may be destroyable only by another tank, or mines. Destroyable for a modern tank like the Abrams is hard to define. Traditionally, tanks are horrifically destroyed when their ammunition rack ignites. In the Gulf War, exploding T-72s shot their 10-ton turret 30 feet into the air. But on the Abrams, the ammunition is secured in the rear of the turret, seperate from the crew compartments, and if it ignites all the explosions blow out through safe vents. The tank has excellent fire-suppression systems. This is all besides the fact that it is incredibly heavily armored.

So if an Abrams is hit, the engine would likely be disabled without incinerating the tank. The crew could continue fighting even without power. If the ammunition compartment is hit, the crew will still be alive. They may be out of main tank rounds but they can still use the onboard machine gun. It would take a penetration of the turret to kill the crew. And if the tank is buttoned up there's almost nothing that can get into it. The Abrams and its crew could survive on its own for a good length of time.

Anyway, the tank will be around for quite awhile to come. Its end is more likely to come as a change in the need for a heavy military as it is for being obsolete. It can always upgrade.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
JAVELIN ANTI-ARMOUR MISSILE, USA


I like the javelin its another fire and forget anti-tank weapon. The Javelin anti-tank missile has a range of 2,500m. Not as good as the other weapon but you dont have to lug around a 120mm motar it only weighs 22.3 kg. So it can be carried a fired by one soldier. The tandem warhead is fitted with two shaped charges: a precursor warhead to initiate explosive reactive armour and a main warhead to penetrate base armour.

Can you say "can opener"?

mfcbastion.external.lmco.com...

Yes Javelin is pretty bad ass. Even the Dragon missiles, in Gulf War 1 US Marine Corps assaulted Kuwait International Airport with only infantry and light armored vehicles. Well they were going against a #load of Iraqi tanks and the Marine infantry wiped out all the tanks with endless barrage of Dragon missiles it was pretty bad ass.

But if you notice, Javelin flies relatively slow. Onboard anti-missile laser and electric armor can be good defense against all infantry missiles. These defenses are being developed and no doubt will be deployed. If they are, then Abrams only other threat is mines and other tanks because missiles will never reach them.

US military already has a laser that can incinerate artillery shells in mid-flight. Say the tanks don't have onboard lasers, but a laser vehicle that moves with the tanks. The lasers are raised on extendable towers so they can overlook the tanks. All incoming missiles are destroyed by the laser tank or rendered inert by directed EMP shots.

Like I say tanks adapt to technology. The idea of a tank is going to be important for ground warfare for a long time. What may change though is the nature of warfare from large ground actions to more counterinsurgency and pinpoint strikes. These require troops. As long as there is serious ground-based warfare, though, I think there will always be tanks in one form or another.

Since the Javelin homes in a the specific thermal signature of a tank's engine, why not just blur out this image. Some flares or IR emmiters that bloom and turn the specific image of a engine into a big thermal bloom would be simple enough to defeat it.

Of course you could just blow it out of the sky with something like Arena.

Sure you can blur the image on the javelin with flares but this is the Iraqi tanks we are re talking about they are not the cream of the crop by any means also the THEL laser is soon coming to a battle field near you in the near future.

I don't think we can attach a laser to every tank company, or battalion for that matter. I think a much more realistic solution to active vehicle defense is a box of 20mm projectiles in a "metal storm" box on top with a millimeter wave radar to detect incoming ATGMs. No big power requirement for pretty much the same capability.

Well I guess it all depends on how well lasers advance. Right now with conventional tanks vs. say helicopters it's pretty hard for the tanks because of the fire-and-forget missiles of the helicopters. Longbow apparently can target dozens of tanks in one shot and then share that info with other Longbows, so one helicopter could scan and target an entire enemy formation, then the chopper sinks below terrain, shares the target data with other Longbows, and they fire a few dozen Hellfires in one volley. Considering the mobility and stealth of the Longbows that's a pretty formidable thing against tanks. But if there was some type of defense on each tank then it would relegate choppers back to recon and transport instead of effective tank killers. A chopper could never go toe-to-toe against a tank that could fire a strong laser.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
so one helicopter could scan and target an entire enemy formation, then the chopper sinks below terrain, shares the target data with other Longbows, and they fire a few dozen Hellfires in one volley.

Actually mast mounted Longbow radar allows them to perform radar scan from behind pretty good cover.

I just wonder how well this electric armor works against tandem warhead missiles. First shaped charge makes hole to "outer armor" so second could have change to drill through second armor. (after all that first warhead will shortcut "armor" and cause disharge of electric charge)


At least this will be hard missile to intercept because of is speed is in same class as tank's KE rounds.
mfcbastion.external.lmco.com...
mfcbastion.external.lmco.com...

Damn, that's an awesome missile.

Doesn't look like infantry could fire it, though. It'd be a fire-and-forget-the-gunner weapon.

Im not sure if metal storm would be better than solid state lasers which can shoot down artillery shells in flight I don't know of a single case where metal storm would be able to do that. also i remember watching a show on TV about battle field Humvees equipped with this lasers that is able to shoot down artillery shells would hit the service in 2013 any info?

It's impractical to mount lasers on tanks or hum-vees, or anything not specifically designed to mount lasers, like anything without a massive power source. Not to mention the big radar you'd need to track those small fast moving shells. That said the biggest threat to tanks is ATGMs, not guided artillery shells. 5 20mm slugs would rip apart an incoming ATGM quite nicely.

It's more likely lasers will become fixed anti-air/missile sites.

No by 2013 the lasers would become smaller as technology improves just like they have the humvees with the ground to air missiles they will have an humvee with this laser mounted on top also when I was watching the show the radar was not a big deal they had made everything to fit inside the humvee which would hold only 2 people.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No by 2013 the lasers would become smaller as technology improves just like they have the humvees with the ground to air missiles they will have an humvee with this laser mounted on top also when I was watching the show the radar was not a big deal they had made everything to fit inside the humvee which would hold only 2 people.

The only lasers I've heard for hummers are disrupter lasers for crowd control.

Whatever they said on that show, I highly doubt they will get an anti-missile laser down to a hum-vee.

Trust me they had a prototype humvee and on the top was this rotating dome and the lasers would be powered by this powerful chemical power plant/reactor but it would only work for a limited amount of time I cant remember for how long before it would run out of power but they made it possible to fit it all in a humvee.

E_T: Nice missile I must say.. Just hope they're not serious about mounting it like that on a hummvee..

"Ok boys.. you're going to hunt tanks in this small arms protected car that has fixed direction of fire and no fire on the run. Just hope that the enemy doesn't see you first and use anything bigger than 7.62mm while shooting you to pieces. Have a nice day.."

Originally posted by Clownface
"Ok boys.. you're going to hunt tanks in this small arms protected car that has fixed direction of fire and no fire on the run. Just hope that the enemy doesn't see you first and use anything bigger than 7.62mm while shooting you to pieces. Have a nice day.."

LOSAT's range is bigger than tanks' main guns.
And idea of this is to keep vehicle in covered position (like in edge of forrest) and when enemy's tanks come in to range launch couple missiles and retreat to other stalking position.

Do you think Bradleys could kill tanks with their much slower TOW-missiles if these much faster missiles in smaller (harder to detect) vehicle wouldn't work.?

The LOSAT was cancelled wasn't it? It was just too goddamn expensive.

Originally posted by Kozzy
The LOSAT was cancelled wasn't it? It was just too goddamn expensive.

You could say that, it WAS cancelled.

The LOSAT program has been around since 1989, and was started an Army ACAT I system with oversight by DOT&E. In 1992, analysis by the Army caused the program to be reduced to a Technology Demonstration. In May 1994 the House Armed Services Committee directed the Army to make an early decision on whether it should continue or rapidly terminate the LOSAT program. The committee believed that since there was no foreseeable plan for LOSAT, cost savings could be achieved in fiscal year 1996 by early termination of the program.

LOSAT was canceled by the Defense Department as a budget decision in November 1996. The Army appealed, and the proposed weapon continued as a technology demonstration effort. LOSAT received final approval as an FY'98 Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) new start the week of 17 November 97. The ACTD will assess survivability of the HMMWV based system and develop a concept of operations (CONOPS) for survivability through deception. The ACTD will also demonstrate enhanced deployability/mobility with the ability to fire upon landing. In April 1998 Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Vought Systems, Grand Prairie, TX, was awarded a $5,000,000 increment as part of a $214,239,685 (total if all options are exercised, base year plus four option years) cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the LOSAT Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) Program, a 72 month research and development effort. This includes five years of development plus two years for extended user evaluation. The LOSAT ACTD will stretch over the 4-5 years

In August 2002 Lockheed Martin received a contract for the first production lot of tactical Line-of-Sight Antitank (LOSAT) Weapon System missiles. The $9.3 million contract represents the first production run of the extremely powerful Kinetic Energy Missile (KEM), which is fired from the LOSAT vehicle. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is the prime contractor on the LOSAT program. The U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Command, Huntsville, Ala., is the contracting agency. Delivery of the missiles will be completed by July 2004. These 108 missiles will be used to equip the first tactical LOSAT unit, A Company of the 5-11th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

And there seems to be 80 million for it in 2005 budget.
www.defenselink.mil...