Tanks post-2022: what now?

[Macandy]

You can put missiles on tracked chassis as well. Or, if they're shooting at Frogfoots dropping dumb bombs, even guns could conceivably have a chance.

Or you can put lots of missiles on foot mobile infantry and make life far too exciting for anything stupid enough to fly below 10,000ft

Lessons learned from GWI - Stay high or die

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or you can put lots of missiles on foot mobile infantry and make life far too exciting for anything stupid enough to fly below 10,000ft

Lessons learned from GWI - Stay high or die

This is why AD systems are, ideally, layered. You use MANPADs for low- and med- alt work, and heavier, vehicle-borne systems for med-to-high-alt work. It both is and isn't rocket science, lol.

 

[Macandy]

This is why AD systems are, ideally, layered. You use MANPADs for low- and med- alt work, and heavier, vehicle-borne systems for med-to-high-alt work. It both is and isn't rocket science, lol

Heavier systems aren't mobile, they are static defences for infrastructure.

The Russian fixation on so many mobile SAM systems is a testament to their Air Forces inability to every achieve air superiority over a battlefield.
And these systems against any credible enemy are just more targets.

If there is anything bar helicopters operating above the FEBA, your Air Force has failed

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Heavier systems aren't mobile, they are static defences for infrastructure.

The Russian fixation on so many mobile SAM systems is a testament to their Air Forces inability to every achieve air superiority over a battlefield.
And these systems against any credible enemy are just more targets.

If there is anything bar helicopters operating above the FEBA, your Air Force has failed

Actually, systems heavier than MANPADs can indeed be mobile, and often are, and the US has built them as well. The control of airspace over the battlefield is a combination of air-superiority fighters, large mobile missile systems, light mobile systems, and MANPADs. This is the layering I was referring to.

I wouldn't call the S-400 just "one more target". It's got a range north of 275 miles and some pretty good fire-control. That's a little outside of Stinger territory, and is still mobile. The Patriot is also a pretty healthy mobile system as well, although it's a bit long in the tooth.

Relying solely on MANPADs and manned fighter aircraft leaves large gaps in an air-defense net.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Patriots are indeed long in the tooth, I'm not sure how well they are going to do against lower radar signature planes like some of the new Chinese fighters and even against conventional targets like SCUDS they didn't do so great.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wouldn't the Patriot system have been receiving upgrades over the years?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Patriots are indeed long in the tooth, I'm not sure how well they are going to do against lower radar signature planes like some of the new Chinese fighters and even against conventional targets like SCUDS they didn't do so great.

Agreed, but my point was that this claim that large, mobile SAM systems are useless doesn't seem to be borne out in general, and also that they are a part of a layered anti-aircraft system. No one system is perfect, which is precisely why defenses are, ideally, layered.

 

[GrauGeist]

Wouldn't the Patriot system have been receiving upgrades over the years?

Yes, quite a few.

Patriot Missile Long-Range Air-Defence System, US Army

Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

www.army-technology.com

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Agreed, but my point was that this claim that large, mobile SAM systems are useless doesn't seem to be borne out in general, and also that they are a part of a layered anti-aircraft system. No one system is perfect, which is precisely why defenses are, ideally, layered.

yes I agree with this point. The best long range SA system in the US seems to be the Navy's Standard missile, by far. That one is world class and seems to keep being improvable.

 

[space dodo]

I think probably designs like the abrams or the merkava will be the go-to for the next couple of decades.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

With some kind of active defense system ala Trophy, and an extra layer of anti-drone defense (drone killing drones, IMO)

 

[Admiral Beez]

Actually, systems heavier than MANPADs can indeed be mobile, and often are, and the US has built them as well.

They're on trucks, and not really any more mobile than a 6x6 bus or M977 awd truck. The tracked variety is what you need once you're off the main roads. But unlike the Russian Buk-M shown below, the NATO tracked SAMs seem to be shorter ranged.

 

[Shortround6]

You also design for your intended environment.

Western Europe has one road density, eastern Europe (old Eastern Poland) a different road density. Belarus/Ukraine a different road density and some mid-eastern countries another.

Using tracked chassis if you are rarely going to be operating more than 20KM from a paved road with a 50km range missile seems a bit of overkill.
Even a 24km missile like the 2K12 Kub doesn't need to be only a few km from the tanks, it might only need to be 8-10k?

If your road network sucks you need to compensate for it.

If you don't operate in deep snow (or mud) very often then tracks may be over kill.

How good are your wheeled chassis? not all trucks have the same mobility.
Not all tracked vehicles have the same mobility.

Tracked chassis cost over twice as much over their life times in fuel/maintenance.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

They're on trucks, and not really any more mobile than a 6x6 bus or M977 awd truck. The tracked variety is what you need once you're off the main roads. But unlike the Russian Buk-M shown below, the NATO tracked SAMs seem to be shorter ranged.

View attachment 667609
View attachment 667610

When you've got a missile range of 160 or so km (Patriot) or 400 km (S-400), being road-bound doesn't really hamper operational effectiveness. What's needed at that point is good camouflage and good ground security.

Tracked vehicles are great for providing short-range AD for advancing columns, but for an area-defense system they're not a great add-on value. Not to mention the fact that longer-range missiles are of necessity heavier, so going off-road has other, non-combat hazards involved.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Up to the 70's aside the Hawk system (medium range) all other long range NATO SAM systems e.g. Nike/Bloodhound were static. - whilst the Soviets had turned all AA and SAM systems to be mobile due to obvious reasons. With the rise of anti-tank helicopters and NATO's change towards flexible response the short range systems e.g. German Gepard, Roland (tracked and 8x8) and Manpad systems were added.

Patriot was the first NATO SAM system to be mobile and they are all truck mounted, since the missile carrier is one issue, but far more systems/vehicles are required within a SAM battery in regards to command post, and tracking radars. AFAIK the Soviets turned partially to track mounted missile carriers due to having tracked vehicles in abundance - whilst 8x8 trucks are far more versatile in rugged and muddied terrain then SAM carrying tracked vehicles and offer a far more reduced heat signature then tracked vehicles.

 

[Macandy]

I wouldn't call the S-400 just "one more target". It's got a range north of 275 miles and some pretty good fire-control. That's a little outside of Stinger territory, and is still mobile. The Patriot is also a pretty healthy mobile system as well, although it's a bit long in the tooth.

Relying solely on MANPADs and manned fighter aircraft leaves large gaps in an air-defense net.

Range north of 275 miles?
Oh Please!

It CAN detect a target at 275 miles, as long as its a large civil airliner flying above 30,000ft
Against fighter sized targets? 45 miles tops on a good day.
There's a VERY good reason S-400 has <25 mile range SHORAD missiles in some of its tubes - they are for self defence from attacking fighters.

Ya canna change the laws of physics, not even the Russians - S-400 needs an AWACS to target anything flying low beyond 25 miles miles.
And if you have an AWACS to guide SAMS, why isn't it guiding fighters at far greater ranges as BARCAP?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Range north of 275 miles?
Oh Please!It CAN detect a target at 275 miles, as long as its a large civil airliner flying above 30,000ft

Against fighter sized targets? 45 miles tops on a good day.
There's a VERY good reason S-400 has <25 mile range SHORAD missiles in some of its tubes - they are for self defence from attacking fighters.

Ya canna change the laws of physics, not even the Russians - S-400 needs an AWACS to target anything flying low beyond 25 miles miles.

Or even a raised antenna, which is a common workaround to expand a radar horizon.

And yeah, I'd kinda expect a SAM system to have some missiles for self-defense.

And if you have an AWACS to guide SAMS, why isn't it guiding fighters at far greater ranges as BARCAP?

Maybe those fighters are executing offensive missions rather than pulling standing patrols?

Hey, if large mobile systems are useless, how come so many militaries use them? Remember, that's the claim I'm disagreeing with.

 

[Macandy]

Or even a raised antenna, which is a common workaround to expand a radar horizon.

And yeah, I'd kinda expect a SAM system to have some missiles for self-defense.



Maybe those fighters are executing offensive missions rather than pulling standing patrols?

Hey, if large mobile systems are useless, how come so many militaries use them? Remember, that's the claim I'm disagreeing with.

No, even in GWI, the Patriots stayed well to the rear with the gear defending fixed installations from SCUDS, not moving up as air defence units. Nothings changed.
Patriot batteries don't carry rinky dink SHORAD missiles to defend themselves - its a Russian thing, their telegraph pole sized missiles are not much use against anything with teeth.

The Russians have huge numbers of organic mobile SAM's because they expect to be mauled 24/7 by NATO Fast Air and loose any fighter cover in the first day.

NATO can rely on total air superiority from the off, big SAMS on your FEBA are Gods way of saying you are getting beaten.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

NATO can rely on total air superiority from the off, big SAMS on your FEBA are Gods way of saying you are getting beaten.

Not sure where you got the idea I was saying they are or should be placed on FEBA. At any rate, that's clearly a misunderstanding on your part of what it is that I'm saying, which is that large mobile systems aren't "useless". They have uses such as airspace denial (ever wonder why the Ukrainian Air Force is cautious about flying high even around Lviv? there's one use right there) or supplementing air assets in air control.

Now --you neglected to answer my question -- if these systems are useless, why are so many militaries investing in them?

 

[Shortround6]

if these systems are useless, why are so many militaries investing in them?

Kickbacks?
Employment after military retirement?

Seriously I expect the answer is somewhere in the middle.

The ability/capability of many things like AA missiles is not at all easy to figure out even for anybody not working with them or up grading them.

With so much of their ability/capability depending on radar/sensors/computer power rather than range figure or speed or altitude it gets very hard for some one without up to date military briefings to figure out what they can and can't do.
Or to figure out what different upgrades have done.
Or to figure out what their opponents upgrades and countermeasures have done.

And figure out who is doing what.
If the Air Force and the Army are battling it out over budgets who is going to get the new toys, who is going to get upgraded toys.
Who is declared redundant and retired 2 years before pension kicks in?