Army may scrap FMBT and focus on Arjun

[DivineHeretic]

Buahahahah how many AGM-114 hit targets (in %)during ODS in 1991. Answer thet one question.

I beg to differ.
GW1 will not be the appropriate sample to determine the effectiveness of the AGM114 heliborne munition. The reasons are
1) It was the first deployment in a major conflict since induction into the US military and PGMs itself was in its infancy.
2) The performance of laser guided PGMs was dismal as the battlefield was often enveloped in smoke,often done deliberately, scattering laser beams and in the process confusing the munition. This was later adressed.

The GW2 and the Afgan conflict will be a better sample and example to determine the effectiveness of the missile. The statistics show that over 6000 AGM-114 have been used from 2001-2007 with satisfactory results. Goes to show the effectiveness of the missile and the confidence of the US led NATO. Or do you consider them to be fools who'd use a useless missile 6000 times.

 

[Damian]

Operation Iraqi Freedom was not that very different. I gave example when a column of 50 Iraqi tanks despire air crafts and artillery attacks were stopped not by them but by US tanks.

Efficency of air weapon systems is as I said many times overestimated, on the other hand this does not means that such assetts are not usefull, they are but in the same time there is a difference between using them in situation when air defences are almost non existing and when air defences are present, even very primitive air defences in form of 12,7mm and 14,5mm machine guns, were able to stop attack of AH-64's and force them to withdraw, caused casualties and serious damage and prevented attack helicopters from completing their mission.

NATO had very serious doubts about effectiveness of attack helicopters in case of war with Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces, there were many arguments that use of attack helicopters would end with their massacre.

And history shows us that air forces were never that efficent as it is mostly said to people in TV shows. But of course there are people that instead of thinking, preffer to accept slogans.

Very interesting was US Army conclusion about for example Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia, the conclusion was that despite presence of helicopters fire support, it did not prevented casualties, and that mistake was to base task force on the light infantry, but main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles should be sent there.

There is really many examples, and for example 2006 and Lebanon War, despite the air superiority, Israeli Air Forces were unable to destroy Hezbollah fortifications and minimize their combat capabilities, while in the same time, IDF conclusion was, that if not presence of tanks and their support, casualties would be far higher than they were.

 

[p2prada]

Air power is great when there is no opposition.

Air power is useless if you are fighting in an urban environment and worried about civilian casualties.

Air power is great if you are not worried about civilian casualties.

IAF has been successful, very successful, during air attacks because they had no opposition during such times and conducted missions where there were no civilians. So, no holds barred.

Air power wasn't particularly successful in Iraq or Bosnia. But it was quite successful in Libya. So, there were mission and adversary specific advantages and disadvantages in every theater, including India. Air power saw mixed effects in Vietnam. It started small and became massive. Too few American boots on the ground, did them in, though.

Attack helicopters aren't just for anti-armor warfare, it is excellent for scouting and hunting missions. Vietnam proved the efficacy of attack helicopters.

 

[ersakthivel]

What is the primary purpose of APACHE when it flies along with moving tank armored columns against enemy armor with top attack anti tank missiles?

In indian theater it will have the support of IAf fighters and in future UCAVSs for air defence against enemy fighters

Scouting or hunting?

Scouting alone means it is one hell of a costly scout.

In hunting mode it launches ATGM against targets acquired by other tanks without the line of sight need,

Then what is it's role?

 

[Damian]

AH-64 role is universal platform for weapons, it is not that this is dedicated tank destroyer. Not to mention that newest AH-64E which India will be first foreing user, have capability to control UAV's. IMHO such potential should be used in more creative way than simple tank hunter.

A mixed group of attack helicopters and UAV's can do a lot of damage to more important targets than armored formations. If we assume that group will consist of Mi-24's with special forces teams inside + UAV's + AH-64E's, we can analize some interesting scenarios, for example in COIN or in conventional warfare. UAV's might provide recce and fire support, AH-64's can provide long range precise fire, and Mi-24's can provide transportation for SOF and CAS for them.

Many opprotunities and capabilities, and putting AH-64E in to only one stright role only because this is a popular slogan, is just stupid.

Another stupid thing is constant derailing of this thread by ersakthivel.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Air power is great when there is no opposition.

Air power is useless if you are fighting in an urban environment and worried about civilian casualties.

Air power is great if you are not worried about civilian casualties.

IAF has been successful, very successful, during air attacks because they had no opposition during such times and conducted missions where there were no civilians. So, no holds barred.

Air power wasn't particularly successful in Iraq or Bosnia. But it was quite successful in Libya. So, there were mission and adversary specific advantages and disadvantages in every theater, including India. Air power saw mixed effects in Vietnam. It started small and became massive. Too few American boots on the ground, did them in, though.

Attack helicopters aren't just for anti-armor warfare, it is excellent for scouting and hunting missions. Vietnam proved the efficacy of attack helicopters.

To add to your initial points, air power,especially fast movers are useless and worse even dangerous in battlefields where there is no clear seperation between the warring forces and the two sides are interwined in CQB. We are all aware of the friendly fires in GW1 and GW2 despite blue force tracker on US vehicles. So air power though will play the dominant role in battle, will not remove the neccesity of ground based heavy fighting vehicles, maybe not tanks, but other platforms.
@Damian, for the example you provide in favour of MBTs over air power, I can too provide one very effective example in the form of the CBU97 sensor fused munition wiping out an entire armored regiment in a flash, with very little risk. This is not to say that armor will become obsolete, but clearly shows the direction in which future battle is heading.

 

[DivineHeretic]

AH-64 role is universal platform for weapons, it is not that this is dedicated tank destroyer. Not to mention that newest AH-64E which India will be first foreing user, have capability to control UAV's. IMHO such potential should be used in more creative way than simple tank hunter.

A mixed group of attack helicopters and UAV's can do a lot of damage to more important targets than armored formations. If we assume that group will consist of Mi-24's with special forces teams inside + UAV's + AH-64E's, we can analize some interesting scenarios, for example in COIN or in conventional warfare. UAV's might provide recce and fire support, AH-64's can provide long range precise fire, and Mi-24's can provide transportation for SOF and CAS for them.

Many opprotunities and capabilities, and putting AH-64E in to only one stright role only because this is a popular slogan, is just stupid.

Another stupid thing is constant derailing of this thread by ersakthivel.

Actually for the role you are suggesting, i.e. Of attacking critical infrastructure, stand-off strike munitions are a much safer method as compared to using gunships. But for that one does need a very good recce and target identification and tagging capabilities. In battle this role will have to be taken largely by UAVs, deep insertion SFs and to an extent scout helis with forward air controllers.
Though I agree that Apache is a far too versatile platform to be limited to just tank hunter role.

 

[p2prada]

Another stupid thing is constant derailing of this thread by ersakthivel.

Put him on the ignore list.

A really good poster quit the forum because of him.

 

[Damian]

@Damian, for the example you provide in favour of MBTs over air power, I can too provide one very effective example in the form of the CBU97 sensor fused munition wiping out an entire armored regiment in a flash, with very little risk. This is not to say that armor will become obsolete, but clearly shows the direction in which future battle is heading.

CBU97 becomes useless when vehicles are equiped with very simple yet efficent protection. ERA for example, there are also tanks like some Leopard 2's with additional composite armor on turret roof, or Merkava Mk4.

I seen M1A2SEP prototypes with additional roof protection, although Americans due to their situation, not adopted it, they didn't had need back then.

So against such threats, solutions that are simple, cheap are already here.

Even Indian tanks with ERA on the roof are preaty much safe.

Someone would ask about engine compartment protection, I know that at least Americans had some concept works to add protection to the engine deck against such threats.

Bomblets are not serious threat then, the threat might be top attack ATGM, but then again, with active protection systems, and other solutions, it will be more and more problematic to fight with armored vehicles.

 

[ersakthivel]

Put him on the ignore list.

A really good poster quit the forum because of him.

Errrrrrrrrrr, which realllllllly goooooood poster???????????????

 

[militarysta]

CBU97 becomes useless when vehicles are equiped with very simple yet efficent protection. ERA for example, there are also tanks like some Leopard 2's with additional composite armor on turret roof, or Merkava Mk4.

I seen M1A2SEP prototypes with additional roof protection, although Americans due to their situation, not adopted it, they didn't had need back then.

So against such threats, solutions that are simple, cheap are already here.

Even Indian tanks with ERA on the roof are preaty much safe.

Someone would ask about engine compartment protection, I know that at least Americans had some concept works to add protection to the engine deck against such threats.

Bomblets are not serious threat then, the threat might be top attack ATGM, but then again, with active protection systems, and other solutions, it will be more and more problematic to fight with armored vehicles.

Taken from my other post:

Yes, 84mm EFP can by easly stopped by this:

Here is visible thickness:

Those Arkes armour was meade (propably whit small IBD support) aginst EFP and HEAT bomblets and "smart munitions". And the thread was not funny 84mm EFP Skeet but 155mm EFP from BONUS round.

Agains small caliber bomblets solution is even simpler:

Korean countr-EFP roof ERA:

Polish ERAWA-2 ERA have lower abilities but still it can reduce EFP penetration up to 94% (EFP 85mm diameter, angle of hit 60 degree)

In fact they are dozen posibilities to protect MBT against bomblets and subamunition. The only problem is to protect engine, but replace engine takes 20-45min in western MBT's.

 

[Kesang]

........................

 

[power_monger]

Did US offered 120 mm smooth bore tank gun to India for FMBT ? | idrw.org

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Highly unlikely ..

 

[The Fox]

India already Manufactures Indigenous 120mm Cannon for Arjun MKI and MKII all that they have to do is to design the Smooth bore from rifled gun and If AKI gun comes to India this will greatly affect the Indigenous product

 

[hitesh]

I thought Amarican use German Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

 

[hitesh]

The best tank gun till date available in the market is Rheinmetall's L/55 Tank Gun

 

[Ky Loung]

I thought Amarican use German Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

Both M1A1 and A2 use Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 gun. The A3 which should be field in 2017 or 18. Unless there is a newer version of the cannon it will be L/55. It should be interesting to see the new version of the Abrams. From the information leaked out, it has more protection, bigger gun, lighter, and faster. Everything will be up to date with the latest tech. Both Russian and US MBT will roll out about the same time.

 

[Hari Sud]

Military "fanboys" indulging in another speculative story.

 

[Guest]

The Gun for FMBT is going to be a smoothbore 120mm- and capable of firing next gen- FSAPDS- so some technical help in some form is coming from somewhere- might not exactly be called as ToT but assistance cannot be ruled out-