AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Barrel shroud meme2/2/2024 ![]() There is no synergy here.Ī MBT with loitering munition is the kind of design not dissimilar to battleship-carrier hybrids. Loitering munitions cut into vehicle volume that is especially precious due to armor, and the system operator would spend considerable time and attention focused on the distant battle dozens of kilometers away instead of close combat of a LOS platform. Now it can be argued that other assets are too lightly protected to survive on the modern battlefield, but that is a argument for increasing protection to other assets and not have a force consisting of a singular vehicle type that despite attempts at generalization are extremely weak in many aspects of ground warfare, for example air defense. If you think about standard combined arms formations, any MBT would be accompanied by IFVs, Infantry, recon, Air defense, command, logistics and other assets which a loitering munition may be more suited for. The idea that the MBT needs to carry loitering munitions basically follows the logic of singular vehicle force structures. Even light UGVs or duck taping it on top of self driving tesla's would do. The boxes can be placed on the ground or put on any and every vehicle.ĭistributed lethality makes perfect sense here. Just have field assembly of boxes from walls that mimic signature of a real drone launcher and very easily one can have 10:1 or 100:1 decoy to real launcher ratio. You may not need to fill them with munitions if it is unaffordable.īack line non-LOS forces benefit from concealment: you can put box under forests, inside garages or hell, inside every building to be pushed out via hand cart, under small camo nets or buried lightly as long as door mechanism can push aside the soil covering.Ī box launcher also naturally enables ease of creating decoys. (aka: we added bofors to the battleship, air attack is irrelevant now~)Ĭlick to expand.Drone carriers are not high value though, there is almost no cost in the box launchers. The thing is to look at is figuring out actual limits of practical systems instead of taking things at face value. The interesting thing to look at is the notion of anti-KE APS and anti-top attack APS. (that or huge airforce providing CAP.which can probably blow up all the big targets too) Now counter aerial observation is not an MBT role but just about necessary for MBT operations: forward air defense vehicles with mobility and good levels of protection to go with the tanks should be designed, and I believe more important to formation effectiveness than a new MBT. MMG or low velocity 30mm anti-drone RWS will offer some protection against slow loitering munition and bomber multicopters, but do little against observation. ![]() ![]() One possible take of Ukraine conflict is that tanks are bait to force opponent to open fire with artillery and other long range strike weapons to allow counter battery: if that is remotely the case, cheap and protected tank is better than one with dozens of expensive systems onboard which gets really unhappy against MRSI air burst. (NLOS ATGM for example) If there is a drone, tethered/self recharging, observation drone with tight integration with FCS is more reasonable.Ĥ man crew also points to a lack of actual ambition in automation despite pitches. Loitering munitions is also far too slow to use in fast changing tactical situations, so delays from having to call rear support doesn't matter since one should use faster responding weapons if time on target is needed. Loitering munitions with 60km range have no place on LOS combat vehicles: either you have datalinks to the (much cheaper for payload) rear line vehicles or you don't have datalinks to make use of organic loitering munitions. It seems like people are heading back toward T35 in the "do everything in one hull" vehicle design logic.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |