Thread 64256150

>The European conglomerate MBDA, taking into account the lessons learned from the ongoing war in Ukraine, has begun work on developing a guided missile that can be fired from a 120 mm tank gun at targets beyond line of sight.
>According to MBDA specialists, the war in Ukraine has shown that tank duels are rare, and tanks mainly fire from covered positions, essentially blindly. The new missile, called the Akeron MBT 120, is intended to solve this problem.
>The exact specifications of the Akeron MBT 120 have not been disclosed. It is assumed that the firing range will be no less than 5 km. Targeting will be carried out via television and infrared channels, meaning the missile can be controlled manually or used in “fire-and-forget” mode. The first test is scheduled for 2026.

>>64256150 (OP)
>NLOS
soviet gun launched missiles are not nlos

Just add 2 Brimstone on the roof
Also
>abrahams instead of an Euro tank
really?

so why not eliminate tanks altogether and develop an adequately armored modern SPG, plus high velocity sabot rounds for direct fire/anti-drone work

>>64256150 (OP)
>W-we can still keep the tank relevant guys
A missile doesn't need a fuckhuge barrel to be launched, a normal VLS cell is sufficient. A missile launching vehicle doesn't need line of sight (front/side-directional) armour, it needs all around armor and APS/RCWS. In short, a missile launching vehicle should be an IFV, not an MBT.

start doing this

>>64256169
We are slowly going towards armored SRM carriers being the armored vehicle meta.

hmm yes yes very interesting... however:
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/leonardo-vulcano-120-mm-ammunition-guided-indirect-fire-capability-for-mbts

>be fr*nch
>no 120mm indirect fire laser guided tank round
>have to resort to missile like soviets in the 70s
>no bidet, forced to go around with shit between their cheeks
>eternal second to italy

>only the soviets did GLMs
>MGM-51 Shillelagh
>MGM-166 LOSAT
besides, soviets didn't do NLOS GLMs, only infrared and laser guided DLOS GLMs

>>64256170
The advantage of this is that you don't need an entirely new vehicle with a VLS cell or whatever, you can just swap a few normal tank rounds in the tanks you already have, and now every tank is also potentially a NLOS platform.

>>64256188
Since european nations are stupidly currently building tanks anyway, you might even be right.

>>64256170
Wont the missile benefit from the barrel just like a projectile does? Less propellant for the same acceleration.

>>64256188
reconfiguring a vehicles layout is easy though, as long as the production line still exists
They were NLOS platforms already as long as they had HE ammo

>>64256176
>single unit NLOS missile
vs
>indirect fire round with a secondary designator
luigi, time to lay off the pasta ala vodka

>>64256212
Restricting the diameter, lenght and the unnecessary higher g-rating more than nulls any advantage.

>>64256215
>They were NLOS platforms already as long as they had HE ammo
One thing is to lob HE ammo semi-randomly like the Russians, another is to launch a fire-and-forget missile with pinpoint accuracy and AT capabilities.

I wonder if this is just a way for MBDA to get some experience with GLMs for the potential 130/140mm guns getting adopted in the future

>>64256249
Very likely, also leveraging existing know-how from Akeron.

Starship bros! Our time is now!

Why is this capability necessary when a team of 3 guys can launch like 15 FPV drones that are more versatile

>>64256327
MBDA doesn't make FPVs

There was a lot of hype around NLOS in general about 5 years ago, what happened to that?

>>64256170
>keep the tank relevant
it still is relevant and will be for the foreseeable future
>b-but in the ukraine war
the plight of the dronenigger lol.

Why would restricting a missile to fit in a 120mm breach as opposed to firing from a dedicated launcher produce anything other than a shitty missile?

>>64256442
Cheaper, good enough for the task (F&F at 5km), compatible with the current stock of tanks. MBDA already sells an Akeron that is launched from its dedicated launcher.

>>64256150 (OP)
Literally everything about that is inferior to and more expensive that just bolting on a top attack ATGM, it also leaves you wasting resources on a platform specific system that cannot be used for anything else.

>>64256447
I guarantee you that a non GL option would be cheaper. This is here just so that your tanks have something to do while they wait for their 10 minutes of glory assaulting the enemy position (after it's been effectively neutralized)
A dedicated, lighter vehicle firing non GL missiles is gonna be cheaper and more effective, the only minus being if the enemy has concealed positions within LoS of your firing position, but you'd (presumably) just push the range of the missiles up a bit to avoid that. The one niche advantage this offers is tanks providing their own fire support just prior to an assault, but if you're assaulting a position with vehicles in it, and you aren't coordinating an artillery strike/air strike/mortar strike on those vehicles beforehand, you've already fucked up badly.

>>64256486
>A dedicated, lighter vehicle firing non GL missiles is gonna be cheaper and more effective
Not if you need to develop it from scratch.
If you just need a light vehicle to carry Akeron, it already exists. This gives a similar capability to tanks without much hassle.

>>64256165
This. Bulsaes started showing up because it was the only thing Russia could get that approximates the abilities of a ground launched Brimstone, don't invent something when you already have a solution at hand.

>>64256486
Exactly, anything non GL will be cheaper and better either on a tank or on a separate vehicle. I don't know what a Chibi BTR costs but it is alot cheaper than a MBT,.

>>64256506
Just make pic related but with Brimstone and those 6x6s everyone has been spamming threads about and call it a day. If Brimstone can fit into a van you can fit on top of a armored car.

Unironically why not just mount VLS cells on the back of the tank? Slap some blowout panels on them and make them reload from the outside or some shit to keep the crew safe.

>>64256506
>Not if you need to develop it from scratch.
You know that's the whole point of mission modules in modern IFVs/APCs right? And resources are limited, it'd be wiser to spend them on something more effective than to bandaid on something on a tank. We're talking a NLOS weapon, it doesn't need the protection against direct fire that a tank offers, and I'd much rather be able to salvo off a bunch of missiles at once rather than one every 5-6 s, that's just asking for counterbattery fire

>>64256518
>Just make pic related but with Brimstone
Three years old at this point

>>64256569
>You know that's the whole point of mission modules in modern IFVs/APCs right?
MBDA already makes those. The point is that if you're a country with NATO-standard tanks, you can buy this off the shelf and now you've got NLOS tanks without having to buy a new vehicle or family of missiles.
There are many situations where it could be useful for a tank to carry a couple of NLOS missiles; you never know.

>>64256552
Why does the bore evacuator have veins like a benis?

>>64256601
>he never heard about knot modes
lol lmao owo even

>>64256596
Thus is for tards who think that tanks shouldn't just sit there waiting for the assault, and instead should risk destruction of an important offensive asset doing some shitty fire mission, because idle vehicles annoy them or something. You're gonna have way less maintenance and fuel issues if you give the missiles to a dedicated APC, which isn't even that expensive to begin with, and like you pointed out, is already a product available on the market. A few wheeled APCs are gonna be way easier to conceal, and they can salvo off a few missiles before scampering away, unlike a company of tanks doing the same shit, and you're not attriting your assault forces before you even launch your fucking assault. Ukraine and Russia do this because of a shortage of indirect fire options, but everyone knows the effectiveness of platforms like HIMARS. Don't mistake them making do with what they have with the optimal solution.

>>64256647
It's not meant to replace artillery or HIMARS, or even dedicated ATGM carriers, it's for when your tanks are advancing and you can hit enemy tanks or enemy ATGM positions from behind a hill without needing to call for support or require additional vehicles.
You keep one or two just in case, you can fire them the same way you fire your normal tank rounds, and now your tanks are much more flexible both against infantry and against enemy tanks without the need to really add or do anything to the rest of your force or change your doctrine. Enemy tanks trying to engage you now need to work around the fact that they may not be safe even in a hull-down or concealed position, even if they are just facing a single unsupported tank.

>>64256175
>SRM carriers
Somebody will surely come up with the idea to just step on them, right?

>>64256576
Oddly the Nork side launcher somehow looks more British.

>>64256709
In real life (and some tabletop versions the humble ground vehicle spam just works. You can't stomp all of them before they pelt you to death with missiles.

>>64256468
>it turns out NK have the most modern concept for tanks, even it just a T-62 with addons

>>64256684
Like I said, if you're fucking assaulting a position without indirect fire or air support destroying any vehicles in the open and suppressing ATGM positions you've already fucked up. Any well concealed position won't reveal itself to you until you're within LoS and firing at you. This is some retard in some department of defense going
>hurr durr the ukes and ruskies are blasting at each other with indirect fire from tanks, surely if we have GL missiles we'd win!
failing to consider that GL missiles have severe restrictions to their capabilities, and that both sides would much rather do this shit with dedicated platforms

>>64256723
I was just about to comment that >>64256684 just outlined the use case for the Songun 915.

Obviously anon didn't add MANPADS or the indirect fire ability of the AGLs but they will get there eventually.

>>64256326
>we starship losat and sheridan all over again
Time really is a circle

>>64256684
BTW I think you misunderstand why I bring up HIMARS, I bring it up as an example of the effectiveness of a mobile PGM slinger. I'm not saying HIMARS fits this role, I think you got what I meant based on your ATGM slinger comment, but I thought I should clarify anyways.

>>64256150 (OP)
MGM-51 Shillelagh says hi.

>>64256169
>an adequately armored modern SPG, plus high velocity sabot rounds for direct fire
I drew a sketch of what that might look like. Thoughts?

>The French are sticking a rifle grenade onto a tank

Hardly surprising, at this point.

>>64256150 (OP)
I'm surprised this hadn't been done before. But what I would like to see is something like MANPADs but fired from cannons.

>>64256150 (OP)
Previous attempts at gun-launched missiles were pretty much all restricted to line-of-sight, right? This actually makes the idea useful.

>>64256718
Those are fucking atrocious looking, kek. Looks like a skip and leap away from being the same configuration as a camper van.

>>64256150 (OP)
>Yeah we making FPV drones for 120mm gun
>that we would be $400000 plus tip

>>64256552
Stolen Valor

>>64256165
Fuck you just reminded me of the challenger mockup with the brimstone launch strapped to the back, looked like the old 40k space marine tank box launchers.

>>64256175
I hate those little fuckers like you wouldn't believe. Especially with infernos. They hard counter mechs and infantry for so cheap. God. Now I'm mad.

>>64258186
The old whirlwind was just an M113 with a pair of brimstone racks.

>>64259147
Berlin Camouflage was pure sex

>>64259150
the m113 with nlos ontop was classified for a while even though they were using it in afghansitan

>>64256150 (OP)
>I AM VINDICATED

>>64256150 (OP)
Do we have example of drone guided AT missile? Shouldn't it be the priority?

>>64261505
https://youtu.be/oBHfUsQukds
Aren't fire & forget missiles essentially jet-powered drones?

>>64261771
One major difference between missiles and (most) drones is that drones can loiter. Missiles have to just go straight for the target.

>they make the new barrel missile
>realize that 120mm does is not up to par
>the next generation of NATO MBTs will all sport a Rheinmetall 155mm gun-launcher system with an autoloader

MAKE IT HAPPEN

>>64256170
think of this like that

ill take greece for example
they have a shitload of old ass shitty m1113
they can easly turn them into spike nlos/hellfire even aim9X/aim120 carriers yes?

its super fucking easy to do it
(ok not for greece cause their politicians are super retards)

>>64256175
give praise to Blake!

>>64259139
With the proposed AMS changes they might become far less effective.

>>64256170
>>64256150 (OP)
Literally adding AA guns onto Battleships in the era of aircraft carriers

>>64256170
>T-t-tanks are totally irrelevant, irrelevant I say!
Both Russia and Ukraine disagree with your infantile opinion.

>>64261150
>>64261948
>>64256326
I love the starships.
>>64256398
Tanks are still relevant even in Ukraine as both sides keep trying to get more of them onto the field. The only thing that changed is that tank on tank warfare has become rather rare.

Soon.

>>64256565
FOG-M in the 1980s. It was cheap, worked and just made sense. So the Army buried it.