Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Given the videos we've seen out of the Middle East and Ukraine over the last couple of years that happens appallingly often. Even by so called competent forces.

It doesn't take much for a vehicle to become separated from friendlies or be otherwise blind to a guy coming up from behind or from the sides. Even an RWS can't see everything.

Then you got to figure the hatch is going to be closed not for long in the event someone boards the outside. It's not going to have an extensive or long duration opening sequence from either side, a consequence of needing to get the hell out in a hurry in case of damage.

Meaning ultimately it's a valid if risky option.

Who said anything about popping a 203 round down the hatch? I was saying fire it into the wheels/tracks and bust its mobility. The penetration will be negligible for many vehicles and the damage localized but it is still not hard to cause a mobility kill with UBGL's.

Of course, for all of this, I'm assuming you have a short range between you and the enemy vehicle. If I have more than 100 meters between me and the AFV I'd need to break out an ATGM or hang back and call artillery/air power.

edited 31st Aug '15 3:46:57 AM by MajorTom

matt: Never did and nothing in any of the discussion so far even comes close to implying that. I never mentioned any side having or not having them even once. That you have that view is all on you. Also the other side having them doesn't stop you from using them or mitigate their possible effectiveness in anyway. It just means do unto them before they do unto you pretty much like it has always been since two cave men with sticks decided to hit each other.

Tom: Not really. Even among some insurgents and those who have no clue how to use a tank it is not common. Even then plenty of the latter know to shut the hatch and frequently have some form of infantry milling around though I think some cases infantry might be overly generous. Their awareness is likely highly suspect but even then it is not non-existant and still a threat to Leeroy Jenkins Anti-Armor Grenade Maneuver. Even then when the hatches are open even the dimmest bulb in the boxes seem to be quite aware the bang stick on the swinging thingy makes the enemy infantry go away. You know what else we see a lot of from the middles east? Videos of stand off weapons being used extensively against those targets rather then some idiot trying to run up and grenade a tank. They are least smart enough in most cases to use mines, bombs, RPG's, and any ATGM's they can lay hands on rather then try and run up to a tank and try to pitch hand grenades at it. They certainly tried a few of those Russian Anti-Armor hand grenades but those are not very effective and they saved them for the HUMVEE's and lighter armored vehicles.

Never said anything about grenading the hatch with the 203. If you want to attack weak points you need a reasonably accurate weapon. The 203 is not a point weapon by any stretch and neither are any of it's related weapon systems. Sure they will hit the tank but the chance of the round landing flush and on the weak spot is very very slim. Even the M-47 Striker fires those grenades in a noticeable arc and is not a pin point weapon. Your more likely to miss the weak spot by several inches rather then hit it. The 40mm systems and similar systems are good at hitting an area not a single specific point. So to reiterate no not even modern GL's can do that either. The Military would like them to be able to which is why guided grenades out of a 203 and other similar launchers is a point of research interest. They already have a stand alone sensor fused air bursting grenade for the system.

Never mind tanks can travel with perforated tracks and many modern armored wheel vehicles can lose multiple wheels and keep on rolling. Your chances of landing that grenade hit just right is almost nil out of any current used grenade launcher system on the planet. You can use a RPG at short range the Chechnians had no problem doing just that firing at barely past the minimum engagement range in several cases. That is also the preferred method of ambushing a tank with a dumb fire rocket system. Closer is better to ensure a hit and reduce available reaction and gunner interception times. It also frequently makes it easier to aim the rocket and RPG's at the soft spots. At range they become increasingly hard to hit especially on a moving vehicle.

The problem are enemy tanks that haven't been blown up yet. The solution is to have as many ways of blowing them up as you can find. The enemy always has defenses, maybe they can defend themselves against anything, but they cant defend themselves against everything, and one more tool in your toolbox is one more headache for them.

That applies both ways though, microdrones can be equal useful in taking out defensive positions, including microdrone deployers (ala Bravo Two Zero).

They could. If your rolling through an area you know is hot say you have a dispenser or a dedicated vehicle you could squirt out tens of drones to visit each room of a building or that spot that just happens to look perfect for an ambush. A scout drone flying ahead could spot something a few munition drones sent ahead to say hello could do wonders for stopping any unpleasant surprises.

Just admit it, you're never going to believe such a tactic is plausible until you see an M67 come through your hatch are you?

Because unlike you I am pretty in touch with reality. Like the fact that no it is not common at all and that other weapons are quite overtly preferred by a huge margin for painfully obvious reasons. If you can't grasp that there is no helping you.

If we can assume the tankers are incompetent, we can safely assume the same of the guy running down the road, grenade hoisted above his head, screaming "VIVA L-HRKKKL!"

^ Or both.

It's not that hand-thrown munitions are useless, it's just that the opportunities to use them are limited enough that most armies rely on other technologies.

^ Like a LAW or tripod mounted ATGM. Not this micro-drone crap.

Both, I think. Although if micro-drone swarms ever become common on the battlefield, I think they will be even more of a threat to unmounted infantrymen than to tanks.

We've had this debate before.

Tom: Except again like was pointed out for you even a small drone carrying a small charge could easily be more effective It would go further, faster, and with more accuracy. Face it you got nothing and you are past grasping at straws at this point.

To top it off back in WWII anti-armor hand grenades were specifically developed because a regular hand grenade pretty much doesn't cut it and at best is very difficult to get close enough to make an attempt to land the grenade just right to get it into an open hatch if any were open at all. Even the adhoc solutions they weren't trying to grenade the hatch but the engine, belly, tracks, and tread wells. Even the infamous German 7 grenade charge was used to either concuss the crew and induce spalling from the approx. 3kg of HE charge, shoved under the front of the tracks to blow the tread off, placed or thrown over the engine for obvious reasons, or under the tank. You know the usual obvious weak spots. Even then Panzerfausts and Panzershreks were widely preferred over those methods for pretty obvious reasons.

The Leeroy Jenkins Grenade Assault is used as last ditch desperation maneuver and even then is not actually expected to work outside of a stroke of lucky.

edited 31st Aug '15 5:23:53 PM by TuefelHundenIV

It's better than purpose building micro drones for the express mission of said "stroke of lucky" and getting into the engine or down the gun barrel.

That's the kind of project you'd rather allocate the budget towards improving things like infantry AT weapons such as a better RPG or better TOW.

No it isn't tom. Unlike the luck reliant attack self guided weapons don't rely on being lucky. They rely on accuracy. The gun barrel was just one option but it seems your inability to read the successive posts is showing through again or did you just miss the part where they are not strictly limited to those kinds of targets?

How expensive is a guidable microdrone? If its hundred or thousands of dollars each, then you want maximum chance of success with minimum chance of interception, which means something that's less guided and more aimed/directed.

Not true at all. For example each basic Hellfire Missile is 110,000 per unit. Yet they frquently used against a wide array of targets including soft skinned vehicles, buildings, and infantry not just tanks. They even have special warhead variations for those roles. Now it does get expensive after a while to use a big missile like a Hellfire to swat infantry and softer targets and its footprint is not urban friendly. Between those two factors weapons like APKWS and related programs are looking to be used instead.

They are lighter, more can be carried, have smaller foot prints are comparably cheaper per unit providing nearly the same amount of effectiveness against nearly all targets including most armored ones short of tanks. It is less then half the cost but still a high accuracy guided weapon. They didn't opt for straight up direct fire they opted for a reduced size munition to deliver nearly all the same effects with a guidance package. It could readily damage a tank or other similar very heavily protected target and is highly accurate with a CEP just under .5m. The cheap option is just firing the straight up hydra rockets but just like I pointed out to tom you rapidly lose that high degree of accuracy guided weapons bring turning it from pretty much a point weapon to an area weapon. You raise the efficacy of a weapon because you start to gain the ability to deliberately attack weak points and you reduce the number of shots needed to achieve a hit on one in the first place.

A rather drastic demonstration in history was shown in Vietnam with efforts to knock out the Thanh Hoa Bridge. 300 dumb bombs dropped on it during the first attempts with only minor damage. Certainly quite a bit a cheaper then the guided versions of the time. Then a second operation still using mostly dumb bombs and a few camera guided Walleye Missiles but no joy. The Wall Eyes and dumb bombs were not accurate enough to get the job done. They even floated magnetic mines delivered by cargo craft down the river. Didn't work either. None of the systems including the AGM-62 Walleye (camera guided) were accurate enough or powerful enough to knock it out. Then finally during Operation Line Backer, 8 Craft carrying laser guided bombs not only scored direct hits their hits were so effective from the high degree of accuracy from delivery they dropped half the span into the river on their first attack run with the new weapons. Second mission again first try destroyed the central support pillar. One last time to finish it off with a mix of weapons including laser guided and Wall eyes. Bridge was done with the vast majority of the damage done in just two attacks what several tens of craft and hundreds of cheap munitions could not achieve.

This was also the conflict that demonstrated that helicopter fired ATGM's like TOW were accurate and effective in destroying enemy armor rather then using simpler direct fire weapons. The simple fact is you get higher first shot hit probability and almost always more damaging because of the improved accuracy. You can even see the marked improvement in accuracy of WWII and Post WWII early guided munitions success rates.

Look at guided bullets and guided rifles. They drastically and notably improve the accuracy of the weapons they are integrated with. Yes they are expensive per unit but they are also highly effective per unit.

The cheap alternative to the maneuvering drone munitions would be a dumb free falling munition. Same problem as using the cheaper options you get what you pay for. Or if you just opt for one direction attack that isn't far removed from a direct fire only approach with the same limitations.

edited 1st Sep '15 2:50:19 AM by TuefelHundenIV

The average front line military vehicle is often in excess of 110,000 dollars in cost. Yes even the trucks especially when you factor in the cargo they may be carrying. The average APC, IFV or MBT taken out by 1-3 Hellfires costs so much the missiles expended have paid for themselves several times over.

No such mojo for micro drones. And unlike a Hellfire, there's a lot fewer uses for micro drones.

There are very few targets, mainly infantry in the open that using a Hellfire price-wise is being used at a loss.

If such things are being built for esoteric shite like "crawling up the engine" or "clogging the gun barrel", chances are it doesn't have many uses. You'd be better off slapping legs and a drive system with a trigger on a classic M15 AT mine.

edited 1st Sep '15 3:48:02 AM by MajorTom

Total cost for the CBU-97 is about $360,000. Assuming the main body accounts for $40,000-60,000, that's $7,500-8,000 per 'puck', and those just have to aim at a target, not actually fly towards it. Also, I'd like to know what actual propulsion method you're intending to use, and how you intend to get a significant payload out of the thing when you're going to have to give so much over to propulsion.

Also, they didn't think big enough with that bridge, land a Tallboy (a very big dumb bomb) near it, and watch as the thing shakes the footings up enough to require major repair work.

edited 1st Sep '15 4:19:35 AM by MattII

Didn't we drop the "up the tailpipe" scenario like a page or two back? I'm just picturing a quad copter with a limpet mine.

-bzzzzzzzzt-clunk

"Tovarich, did you hear-" JOHN CENA

One thing I'm thinking this might be useful for, vs convnetional military operations, is for smaller forces or irregulars that might want to avoid direct stand-up fights with conventional enemy forces. Hide on the far side of a hill, buzz the drone over the top and have it skim the treeline to get in position. Obviously countermeasures could include radio jamming or a redneck with a shotgun.

edited 1st Sep '15 5:29:14 AM by AFP

tom: The Average truck is not in excess of 100k please do try to stick to reality. Cargo is so highly variable including being empty it is impossible to count that cost.

Yes such mojo for micro drones. Drones are already significantly cheaper then current gen hellfire and they can take out the truck just as easily. They are definitely cheaper then firing Javelin missiles which have comparable cost the current gen hellfires.

You are also wrong tom on the cost per use but it has been explained to you already. Like the fact that technicals with their black market equipment and second hand gear are way cheaper then the Missile used to destroy them. You don't start getting into actual equivalent cost of using a hellfire until you start swatting armored vehicles. Because everything else is frankly quite a bit cheaper.

And you prove my point nicely that you conveniently ignore everything past that point that undermines your consantly sloppy argument. Like AFP pointed out the tail pipe bit was dropped PDQ you would know this if you were being honest and reading the rest of the discussion. But as per usual you either have selective memory, cherry pick, or choose to ignore anything that easily makes your arguments look a little flat.

Matt: And adding some additional maneuvering capability will not result in a massive cost spike. Drones are already well on their way to being cheaper then the top end and comparably cheap to the lower end.

Let me put the final coffin nail in this inaccurate perception that drones=more cost as a munition. LOCAAS a system more sophisticated then what I have been describing has an estimated production cost of 30k per unit. Why? Because it is simply cheaper to manufacture and uses newer technology to help achieve that. It also has a range of 160km, 230mph air speed, altitude of 750 feet, tri-mode guidance, and tri mode warhead. All I am talking about is something that is released and flies possibly to the sides back, top, or even under a tank to deliver its attack using far simpler tech and a single purpose warhead.

I think you missed the bit where it's 100 lb and travels at 230 mph. A decently-trained soldier could knock those down.

Matt: Oh good lord please tell me you are not serious about a soldier shooting down a small target moving at over 200mph with their rifle. Even hitting something like an airplane or helicopter sized at those speeds is very very hard to do. Even using machine guns that would still be one of those "got lucky" things.

As for being a 100lbs and? Did you forget to actually attach an argument there?

Let me break it down for you because you clearly missed the key point by a mile. The vast majority of that devices weight comes from the fact it has a turbo jet packed into its body with the fuel to fly for 30 minutes at 230mph and over 700 feet in altitude. It has a good sized warhead at nearly 20lbs and a far more complex seeking and tracking system. The guidance system is likely quite a bit lighter then any of the other key components considering we can put the same systems into smaller lighter munition bodies.

What I described doesn't even come close to being that system. It would be carried by a carrier munition like an artillery shell, rocket, or missile. You could even feasibly fire something like that out of a grenade launcher but it wouldn't have the reach of the other options or saturation possibilities. They get a lot of their momentum and speed from their parent carrier to give. You don't need a large or even sophisticated propulsion system to maneuver itself over to the side or behind. At the absolute most a minute of flight time if even that. Likely less for flight time. The only complex part of that is going under a vehicle and even then that isn't that complicated. The warhead doesn't need to be a nearly 20lb triple mode multi-capability munition it can use something that already exists and is far lighter to do extensive damage and weighs less then half a lb. Even the EFP skeet are pretty light weight and highly effective and those are option as well.

Tell that to the Pucaras that got shot down by British rifle fire over the Falklands in 1983. Or the numerous Hueys that got shot down over Vietnam by AK and machine gun fire. (Though yes in the latter's case, dedicated Anti-Air like the ZPU-4 14.5mm was a hell of a lot more effective.)

Have you seen the price of the new JLTV? 250k base price. For what is basically a shiny new Humvee that happens to give its crew a chance to live if it drives over a rigged up 152 round.

New 5 tons and other vehicles in the pipe worldwide ain't exactly the cheap shit from the 80s or earlier. Hell, 5 tons from the 80s cost wise aren't that much cheaper than Hellfire missiles. Fully equipped, they cost more than most civvie cars and trucks save commercial shit.

But it's worth figuring. A 5 ton loaded full of food while not that expensive is a significant increase in cost expended if it gets slagged before reaching its destination.

How much money have we spent trucking in supplies through Khyber Pass from Pakistan? Including the cost of lost vehicles and lost supplies from haji attacks? Billions you say?

If you need a drone to take out a truck you're doing it wrong. A .50 cal bullet to the engine will work just as good and you can do it from 2000 meters. .50 BMG is like $1.50 a bullet, no drone will ever be that cheap.

Then you can use 12 gauge slugs on the engine, 40mm GL's, even a LAW if you really have to. All for much cheaper and simpler than a micro drone.