/k/ - Weapons

>>526183

I personally am thinking about combining the Russian idea of a flying tank and the French idea of the perfect raiding vehicle that magically hovers a few metres over the ground.

>use those new steel-aluminium alloys that are better than titanium to make the body of the heli

>put Rheinmetal's ADS on it (vid related)

>put all kinds of sensor on it and add an "AI" that helps the pilot in piloting the vehicle, so that he won't accidentally crash into a pole or something

>put a 40-60mm autocannon in the nose

>put other kind of fun to the sides

It's weight prohibitive right now, because we can't ensure a one shot kill. That means a large store of ammunition, a large gun, hydraulic system for slewing it, and a radar if there's to be any chance of hit. That's a lot of weight.

That's why only laser CIWS is used, and only enough power to blind infrared sensors. I think Soviets introduced them first on the Su-25, but mostly West operates them now on helicopters under the name of DIRCM. Although it's doubtfull how effective it is against full sized infrared missiles, which are very fast, and carry large enough warheads that if they explode, you're fucked.

Of interest to your musings is Il-102 which had a radar slewed stinger turret in the rear, probably the smallest example of such a "defensive turret" anywhere. This was in the 1990s example, in the original proposal the turret was controlled by a 2nd gunner. The 1991 offering removed the second crewman and installed a radar system to save 1200lb of armor plating. If you're meaning to put a gun on a small aircraft or helicopter, you'll need something like that.

>>526192

Ka-226 could do it. 1 pilot, 1 radio operator, 7 passengers. The radio operator can be part of an 8 man commando team.

It's a high-altitude helicopter with more oomph in the engine than it needs, could easily add some weight of armor or guns.

>>526217

That is Fresh Fruits tier.

>>526183

You'd be better off with what the Hungarian is talking about >>526185 but with an active missile instead of just shaped charges (for range and expanding rod warhead concerns)

>>526192

>a modern hind (24D or 35) can do anything an Apache, a Tiger, or a cobra can probably better AND transport troops at the same time.

They rarely use the troop carrying capacity nowadays and use it for extra ammo and/or fuel or a mechanic

>>526239

>They rarely use the troop carrying capacity nowadays and use it for extra ammo and/or fuel or a mechanic

Wonder why they haven't make a version with a rotating gun turret and an extra gunner for 360 degrees gun coverage against ground targets.

>>526192

A hind can't hover. That right there is a pretty big design flaw.

>>526266

Depends on loadout, in Vietnam Huey gunships where often overloaded to the point they couldn't hover. This is why you see hilltop FOBs with the helipad on the edge of the cliff / hill, the choppers would "bounce" themselves over the edge to gain airspeed.

>>526266

That's just a false statement.

>>526183

Northrop has patents for a hit-to-kill "anti-missile-missile" launched from a retractable launcher. Although in future DEW using lasers and/or microwaves are more likely to be adopted.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15491/northrop-grumman-has-patented-a-kinetic-missile-defense-system-for-stealth-aircraft

G2mill had an interesting idea on using 40mm AGL as a defensive system.

http://www.g2mil.com/JSF%20Guns.htm

I do not have the book at hand to give all the details, but during the Afghan war a Soviet pilot used his Su-25's cannon and rockets to shoot down 2 MANPADS.

>>526283

>hovering a few feet off the ground

>what is ground effect

That being said, I think >>526266 was probably talking about it being at full load with troops.

>>526283

Hinds cannot hover with any appreciable payload because the large wings that give it high speed also block the rotors down force.

A study of combat use of the Hind is very interesting. Unlike, the NATO "pop-up" tactics the Soviets relied on a high speed shallow dive, keeping in mind the helicopters inability to hover. During the Afghan War the ability to carry troops was rarely used as the reduced payload due to hot-and-high conditions was better utilized to carry weapons also important because the original 12.7mm MG and 57mm rockets were deemed ineffective against fortifications. Instead only a single loader was on board who used PKMs for suppressive fire. Without soldiers to protect, the armor around the troop compartment becomes "dead weight".

The next generation of Soviet attack helos Havoc and Hokum did away with the troop carrying capability aligning with Western concept of using the helicopter as platform for guided missiles.

During the Iran-Iraq war (as per the East Germans advise according to sources) the Iraqis used their Hinds in conjunction with Gazelles-the Hind using it firepower to suppress the enemy and get their attention while the Gazelle using their small size to hide behind terrain for flanking "sniper" attacks using HOT.

A helicopter is most vulnerable during hovering. The US Army used their hovering tactics (developed for use against Soviets in Europe) during the Iraq War and had significant losses, the most famous case being the 2003 attack on IRG Medina Div in Karbalah. This was in contrast to the Marines more successful use of the less sophisticated Cobra who did not used hover in urban areas instead relying on constant motion which is quite similar to how the Soviets used their Hinds all along.

>>526248

It's called the Mi-28.

>>526266

A hind can't TAKE OFF fully loaded to the max with fuel, ammunition, and a fully armed passenger crew. But by the time it reaches the objective, roughly a third of the fuel is gone.

Trust me the design wasn't made so the troopers would have to jump out at high speed on the battlefield, it can land at the target location. Once the troopers are disembarked, the helicopter is supposed to hover over them and provide support, using another third of fuel and expending all ammunition. Then the raiders board it again, and the helo returns home with the last third of fuel.

In that sense it is STOVL, short takeoff, that can also hover, and lands vertically.

>>526320

Always triggered how easy they were to shoot down.

>>526339

>>526320

Don't forget how broken the Overlords were until they got nerfed in Zero Hour. The four overlord setup with two gat guns, one prop speaker, and a bunker filled with god knows what.

>>526557

This. Also fuck Avengers!

>>526563

I mean thats probably not even gonna be remotely possible in the near future. we've nowhere near enough energy on a humvee to shoot lasers right now lol.

Though I confess, the Battle bus was ahead in its time by using it as suicide transports.

Snackbar attack in Ny anyone? Parade attack in france anyone????

>>526217

>Using a GAU8 for CIWS

I know anime can get over the top, but that's just retarded.

>>528553

>Don't most SAMs detonate a fair distance away from the aircraft in order to shower the general area with shrapnel?

No, it depends.

Typically short-range missiles typically have impact fuzes, long range ones proximity fuzes.

>>528555

>What is Goalkeeper?

>>528562

> I think heavy IFVs should replace both "normal" IFVs and MBTs

Why? I know they can replace IFVs in urban situations and maybe even be the spearhead of regular steppe operations but why replace MBTs? You'd either have to sacrifice the amount of ammo a tank can carry, the size of it's gun or troop carrying capacity.

Too much eggs in one basket man….. Especially since you want the IFV to support the infantry for a few days.

>>528559

I retract the point.

>>528570

Forgot this: if every vehicle carries 4 hypervelocity missiles, and you use them in platoons of 5, then one platoon has 20 missiles. Even if they fire salvos of 2 missiles on every enemy tank, they can take on 10 MBTs. Double them, and now you have 40 missiles in a platoon, and all of those missiles should have a better chance at hitting than any tank cannon. They are faster than even APFSDS, and should be guided too.

>>528570

You talk about cost then go on about hyper-velocity missiles.

I could understand regular ATGMs but you're going to have really expensive missiles on your troop carrier/tank.

I'll put it to you like this, the AMX-10P carries a 90mm gun, can only carry 4 troops, the Merkava can carry troops but it drastically reduces the amount of ammo they can carry at once.

Those mortar carriers may have to double in numbers to keep up both sustained indirect fire and direct fire support as well. Not to mention tanks are heavily targeted in conflict, you'd have to make sure your scouts did a good job and found any ambushes laying in wait because not only does it knock out the tank, but it knocks out your troop carrying capacity, they may even aim for only the rear door and knock out who you're carrying if they are that tactically efficient.

I mean, the idea is novel, but in practice it won't really work when push comes to shove because you're sacrificing something to do two roles which it won't do very well.

>>528580

>If you let the enemy fuck all of your heavy vehicles in the ass that way, then you fucked up the situation beyond all hope, and it will turn into a desperate fight at best, or a one sided massacre at worst.

I think in the way that things would be the worst case scenario. If you can plan for things the enemy could plan the same things or even better.

So you always work on stuff that gives you the best chance in the worse situation, not the best chance in the best chance.

An IFV with 4 missiles that probably can be defended against when shooting at a tank will leave you with only 4 shots, compared to 18 at the ready (or more) in a modern tank. [spoiler] seeing as they're going for photonic circuits in radar systems soon to process things faster with low bitrates they'd be able to detect it sooner or later [/spoler]

>really expensive missiles

>Why?

It's really the guidance, the guidance system has to be decent enough to handle the G-Load and fast enough to process where it is at a given moment and where it needs to go. SACLOS would make it much cheaper to do but if the enemy is in line of sight you're also in line of sight.

The way I see city centric warfare in the future, it would be something akin to starting riots in the streets, raiding police stations to cause civil unrest, hummingbird sized drones going through the windows of buildings by the thousands to pick up who's hiding where and what they're hiding with and more helicopters being used to land on rooftops building by building cleared by teams going floor by floor with heavy IFVs putting teams at the bottom of the building to clear upward with that coordinated team, lots of psychological warfare etc.

The other reason why wars have moved to cities is because there's enough stuff to deal with the steppe to make it unwise to be out in the open, Artillery, Mortars, Mobile infantry and Direct fire support in some shape or form either from IFVs, Mobile guns or tanks.

>>528593

Also shells are cheaper than even the cheapest missile. A 120mm APFSDS costs about $1000. Cheapo Russian ATGMs cost around $5-10,000 while western ATGMs can cost upwards of $250,000.

To make matters worse the LOSAT is essentially an AMRAAM engine and sensors with the payload bay extended to house a 120mm APFSDS rod. AMRAAMs cost about $1.5-2 million, add the cost of modification and the cost of the $1000 warhead…. it won't be cheap. The CKEM had half the range and energy, and was purpose built so we can expect it's price to be even higher.

Armata tanks cost $3.7 million, and can likely take a few kinetic kill missile hits if their luck-based armor works.

In other words using kinetic kill missiles is pants on head.

>>528687

>shells are cheaper than even the cheapest missile.

Maybe, but you should compare the price to the tank you intend to destroy, and also take a look at the potential number of tanks you will fight. Also take into account the price of the cannon that fires the APFSDS rounds, and the price of the whole tank that carries the cannon.

>the LOSAT is essentially an AMRAAM engine and sensors with the payload bay extended to house a 120mm APFSDS rod

Do you have sources for this statement? No matter how much I try to read about the development of various hypervelocity missiles by Vough, I can't find anything about the AMRAAM. Also, from what few numbers are out there, it seems like the LOSAT missile weighted about half as much as an AMRAAM, and I can't see how that could happen if they extended the missile.

>a 120mm APFSDS rod

Again, I couldn't find anything about an APFSDS, only about a simple steel rod.

>AMRAAMs cost about $1.5-2 million

Even if it's indeed an AMRAAM, he highest price I could find with a quick search is $1.2 million, and that's for the newest variant. Kikepedia says the C version is in the $300.000–$400.000 range. So you could buy 9.25-12.3 missiles for every Armata.

>and was purpose built so we can expect it's price to be even higher

What? That makes no sense. Sure, you have to build the assembly line, but once that is done the more you buy the cheaper it becomes.

>and can likely take a few kinetic kill missile hits if their luck-based armor works

If that armour works, then they are nearly invulnerable when it comes to traditional ATGMs, and they can take quite a few kinetic penetrators to the face. So you have a better chance to overwhelm it with two hypervelocity missiles fired in one salvo. Especially because they wouldn't just stand in one place while you shell them with a cannon.

>>528715

>they can produce less missiles over shorter period

*more

>>528715

>leaf in charge of basic economics

literally every statement in your last paragraph is wrong

>>528723

http://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=iiojguQy8pI

I am not an expert on this but seeing this video it seems that the rocket motor is still burning throughout the flight time which means that the missile has to travel for some distance to attain sufficient velocity. This coupled with the time required for the FCS to gather the missile (like most line of sight guided missiles) means that the missile has a minimum effective range or a dead zone. Although I could not find any mention of it on the web. To cover this dead zone on BMP-1 the Sagger was coupled with a 73mm gun.

Also tanks, as combat use during WW II and recent Ukrainian conflict suggests, are used mostly not against tanks but against enemy bunkers, improvised fortifications etc. Here the tanks ability to deliver (relatively) low cost, accurate and high velocity (necessary for penetration of heavy concrete etc especially important when one compares it with often touted use of turreted 120 mm mortars in direct fire role) direct fires is invaluable.

>>528722

>educated guesses in my economic theory are superior to empirical evidence in your economic reality

ooookkk

>>528723

Dude it's an INFORMAL COMPARISON, I'm not saying the LOSAT was designed based on AMRAAM, I'm just comparing them because they're similar. Is there a language issue? két dolgot összehasonlítva, mert hasonlóak

>It says $238,000 for one missile in 1996(?)

That tracks with AMRAAM, AIM-120C from 1996 is around that price ~$300k, and it's ~$1.7m now. Ergo LOSAT would be around the same price today, around $1.5-2 million as I originally said. Doing simple inflation isn't enough.

Can you even afford to lose one in that situation? Even if they have a high hit rate, lets say 90%, youre going to want to fire two per every enemy tank, otherwise 10% enemy tanks firing back would BTFO your missile boxes and take out enough sunk cash to justify their loss anyway.

If you actually want to see what good missile carriers look like, look up the Khrysantema system or Kornet D. Inexpensive unarmored systems you can afford to lose fifty of them for a single enemy tank, yet each of them can take out four tanks.

>>528737

Yeah that's a whole other ball game, I'd like to see the velocity curve but I can almost guarantee that this thing would be useless in closed terrain with <1km encounters.

>>528848

> AIM-120C from 1996 is around that price ~$300k, and it's ~$1.7m

How much can inflation explain that? Should not the price drop the more they are mass produced and sold like fucking fresh warm buns to every NATO basic bitch and all their vaguely "allied" countries?

>>526217

If it's not called the "Wasp" that'll be such a let down.

>>528737

>the missile has a minimum effective range or a dead zone

That's a valid concern, I admit.

>To cover this dead zone on BMP-1 the Sagger was coupled with a 73mm gun.

Well, the vehicle is supposed to have an autocannon, and a big one, but I'm not sure if it would be up to the task. Although the CV90 doesn't have AT missiles, because back in the time they thought that the 40mm Bofors is enough for the task, but that's not a valid argument any more.

>high velocity (necessary for penetration of heavy concrete etc especially important when one compares it with often touted use of turreted 120 mm mortars in direct fire role)

The Bunkerfaust (a projectile for the Panzerfaust 3) uses a HEAT warhead to penetrate the bunker, and it has a frag sleeve that is supposed to go through the hole and explode inside. If it indeed works as intended, then scaling up the technology for a 120mm mortar shell would work even better. But again, I also admit that it could cost more than a HE shell from a canon. It sounds like what you really need is an assault gun, not an MBT.

>>528848

>I'm just comparing them because they're similar.

But they aren't similar, they have different weight and size, different launching platforms and targets, and completely different guidance systems. It's like comparing the dushka to a Yak-B. Both of them are heavy machine guns firing 12.7x108, but one of them is a simple infantry machine gun, while the other one is a gas-operated Gatling gun intended for aircraft.

>AIM-120C from 1996 is around that price ~$300k, and it's ~$1.7m now.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Weapons.pdf#page=53

>he missile has undergone various service life improvements. The current generation, AIM-120D, has a two-way data link, Global Position System-enhanced Inertial Measurement Unit, an expanded no-escape envelope, improved High-Angle Off-Boresightcapability, and increase in range over previous variants.

It's the D version, not the C. Also, both the AIM-7 Sparrow and the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow were/are Mach 4 missiles, although they are even heavier than the AIM-120. And only the Advanced Sea Sparrow is in service, and the only possible thing a hypervelocity missile could need from any of those is the rocket motor.

>Doing simple inflation isn't enough.

Then what made them that more expensive if not the inflation combined with the fact that the D version is full of completely new technologies that weren't even present in the C version?

>fire two per every enemy tank

That's still 20% of the enemy tank's price. So even if we go this shekel-counting way, the enemy loses 5 times more money than you.

>otherwise 10% enemy tanks firing back would BTFO your missile boxes and take out enough sunk cash to justify their loss anyway

Again, I speak of a heavy IFV that has the same level of protection as a MBT, with passive armour and active defence systems. If a single canon shot can take out such a vehicle, then it means all current advancement in defensive technologies are for naught.

>Inexpensive unarmored systems you can afford to lose fifty of them for a single enemy tank, yet each of them can take out four tanks

But could fifty of them break through an enemy defensive line, deliver the infantry into a fortified city, and give them fire support when they are there?

>>528855

Something called a consumer price index is the closest we've come to explaining it, but the CPI targets specifically common retail and food items. A different index would have to be made for military weapons to model it properly, maybe military-industrial price index, MIPI.

>price drop the more they are mass produced

Yes but as I explained the factors that cause price to drop with mass production don't always work. And just because production is cheap, doesn't mean resources will be cheap, or that the research or marketing department won't be taking a lot more money.

>>528905

>different weight and size

And how would you adjust the price to account for the size difference?

>different launching platforms

How the fuck would this affect the price? The AMRAAM and SLAMRAAM aren't going to have wildly different prices.

>and targets

Jesus christ…. look, can you find a more similar weapon? Because if not, how the hell are you guessing at the price?

>>528927

Brb. Filling a petition to the Defense Ministry to modify our F-16s to fire R-77s instead.

>>528558

>Typically short-range missiles typically have impact fuzes

I think they don't.

>>528927

Look, your whole argument hinges on the supposed stellar price of a hardened FLIR guidance system, and you base this on the price of the AIM-120D, and the difference of the price of the C and D versions.

The AIM-120D has:

>semi-active receive-only radar guidance

>a two-way data link

>Global Position System

>enhanced Inertial Measurement Unit

>expanded no-escape envelope

>High-Angle Off-Boresight capability

>a range of more than 100km

The LOSAT had:

>a FLIR guidance system

>10km range

Don't you think that there might be a bit more of those expensive electronics in the AMRAAM? Also, you could might as well try to dig out the price of an R-27, because that too is a Mach 4.5 missile with a range significantly more than 10km.

tbh nuclear powered helicopters and planes with a mosquito zapper tesla energy field

>>531964

>>531964

at least, useful for zapping durka durka bullets midflight

>>528883

jigabachi is a name for a specific type of japanese wasp I believe.

It still looks and would be extremely stupid.

>>526295

It was rather unfortunate that soviet pilots flew extremely high in fear of small arm's fire when they should of been flying at low altitudes and at speed. The reality of the matter was that during/post afghan and onwards, most soviet pilots were drunk pilots and applied their training to each and every environment they encountered, regardless of geographical area. Not knocking them, but just an observation.

>>532178

Er no, they did high speed low altitude flight, that's their signature move. Also whenever you see a hind there's a buddy hind behind it to cover its ass, they invented buddy tactics for attack helos too.

Why do you think they flew high?