Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Share
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 181
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Grad, Uragan, Smerch MLRS

    Post  Flanky on Mon May 02, 2011 8:39 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:
    But like I've said, the M270 won't be the same distance from the Smerch, it'd be farther from the Smerch than the Smerch can fire from. Thus the Smerch becomes useless. I've also stated that you can fit 3 configurations for the M270, 12 rockets, 2 missiles, or 6 rockets and 1 missile. Jack of all trades, it is, kill a Grad, bomb the Smerch, safe from all BM-series. Like I've said, Russia will not use Smerch or Tender if a Chinese tank rush occurs in Far Eastern Siberia. They'd use Tornado and it's rapid reload capability to spam guided AT munitions in and around where the Chinese tanks are. That rapid reload capability is something the BM-series nor the Tochka/Tender has, but the M270 does have. The M270 is like a Swiss knife and the BM-series/Tochka/Tender are like everything in it. Multi-purpose, flexible, gold-plated tube arty; but still best arty.

    Dear Ironsight < MLRS or Multiple Launch ROCKET System is a system launching ROCKETS to bring destruction to a remote location in an aerial manner. It is not a point precision weapon. As said you can't use a shotgun to hit a target one and half kilometer away. For that you have sniper rifle. And when it comes to costs. The total cost of ownership is what matters. And TCS include not just the unit price, ammo price and maintenance price. You forgot one veeery important expense and that is DEVELOPMENT price. Previously US Army was using lance and pership weapons as surface to surface precision missiles. In USSR it was Tochka system. Nowadays your army have got a briliant idea of converting an MLRS M270 into a precision weapon. While in Russia Tochka was upgraded and developed into nearly similar missile system with greatly enhanced capabilities called Iskander or previously reffered to as Tender. Can you imagine the development cost of a missile with the size of Lance and its capabilities to fit the M270 launching rail? I can tell you the development costs were several times higher than the costs of developing iskander from tochka, which are nearly the same systems except the updated navigation systems, fcs and missile engine. Im not counting the vehicle chasis as this was not developed for this system rather reused just like the m270 wich was derived from bradley. If you count in the development costs into equation suddenly the combination of Tender and BM-30 Smerch is becomming more efficient.

    Now lets compare the BM-30 and MLRS systems without any other units additional support shall we? MLRS system without netcentric warfare is absolutely blind system. It needs an input from other units regarding its targets. This is not the case for BM-30 Smerch which can launch its UAV rocket to scan the possible presence area for targets and then launch a surprise attack INDEPENDENTLY from any other unit. This alone is a huge plus for Smerch. As far as i know the ATACMS needs a coordinates of the target, it cannot be launched completely blindly because it does not have a seeker head to use in terminal homing phase. Correct me if im wrong. Now m270 being multipurpose might not be a bad thing from the perspective of cost. In the enviroment of american military industrial complex it is certainly a more cost efficient option than having 2 separate systems. However compared to Russian or Chinese cost of work, when Russia have 2 independent systems for 2 completely separate tasks - the chances are that the Russian solution will be still muuuch more cheaper than the american one. Remember the T-90 is half the price of abrams, or a Vikhr ATGM missile is 1/8 of the price of Hellfire and when fired in a double shot - meaning 2 vikhrs at once against abrams is a overkill for 1/4 the price of hellfire. Those are facts. Now lets get into warhead types. Lets skip the rocket type warheads as we all know most of them. ATACMS missile have very limited types of warheads: Submunitions and HE warhead - again correct me if im wrong. The Iskander/Tender missile system have besides tactical nuclear warheads have HE fragmentation, submunition, dedicated bunker penetrator, fuel-air explosive, ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE yes EMP warhead. With the ECM and homing seeker capabilities of this system which can easily penetrate most modern american airdefense system both land based and naval based - i can clearly see the multipurpose manner of this system way beyond m270. Because in a warfare scenario america would need beside m270 to deploy atleast one additional system for coastal defense. Russia does not need to as the Iskander missiles DO have terminal homing seekers optical. Thus these missiles can hit also moving targets - we can speculate about the size of an target but taking into consideration the state of the art seekers technology in Russia, i have no doubt they could be used to sink incomming landing barges or air cushion ships, let alone the floating docs ships or any other escort vessel within 480 km range using navy SAT recon. Now thats what i call effectiveness. When EMP warhead would be utilized several units normally out of submunitions range would be destroyed as well including at grater range more sensitive radar units - in USA you would need to call in airforce with SEAD aircrafts and AGM-88, so again effectiveness of such system is dramatically rising. Now as Garry have pointed out previously, there is a KUB missile variant surface to surface that is easily interchangable and yet the operational is even more extended. If you'll take into consideration all this, the mathematics is very easy when you can see the Smersh system being capable to destroy land units as normal MLRS system while Iskander missile system will take care of ships, communication hubs, weapon storage facilities, HQs from much greater distance than any ATACMS missile would be capable of - providing it would pass the airdefenses which in current state of the art Russian air defens units i HIGLY doubt.
    Now when it comes to mobility. Ok the M270 is slightly faster at reloading times and it can go offroad better because of its caterpilar tracks. However the Russian wheeled chasis have better operational range, grater speed at roads and lat but not least are much more simple to maintain. In a warfare scenarion if M270 would manage to destroy the BM-30 Smerch, the moment of launch Russian artilerry radar or air defense unit would detect the rockets or missiles fired and it would mark the area as possible enemy artilery unit placement. If Iskander missile would be fired and M270 would move, that doesn't matter because the Iskander can be re-targeted in flight, even by UAV and it ould eventually hit the moving M270 anyway.... result?
    Russia lost MLRS capability, USA lost MLRS capability + precision missile strike capability. So i dare to ask whats more efficient?


    Overall sometimes there is a reason why we are using a kinfe AND a fork rather than using fork alone.
    And as such in the role of MLRS the BM-30 Smersh greatly outperforms the M270 MLRS and as such in the role of point precision missile strike system the Iskander is unrivalled.
    Currently there is a development of another Iskander variant launching cruise missiles with a range of thousands of killometers.[/quote]
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 03, 2011 3:45 am

    Nice to see I was not the only one thinking this.

    The M270 is not a bad system for the US Army and it suits their way of doing things and their way of fighting wars.

    The reality is that the M270 works best in a net centric environment with air superiority and an air force and air units that can find targets.

    The Smerch et al is probably the best in their class for the original purpose of the systems... which is to flood an area with HE in a very short time so there is not time to find cover and survive.

    Currently there is a development of another Iskander variant launching cruise missiles with a range of thousands of killometers.

    They would need to withdraw from the INF treaty to deploy such a weapon, but if the ABM treaty is a cold war dinosaur then the INF treaty could probably be argued to be the same.

    Withdrawl from the INF treaty would mean instead of targeting Chinese and European and Middle Eastern targets with ICBMs with flight ranges of 10,000km or more they can use much smaller missiles with flight ranges of 2,500-5,000 km which will be cheaper and more efficent.

    (Note Iskander is the export missile, with the latest model called Iskander-M. In Russian service this weapon is called Tender... but new reports describe it by its export name... just as with the Yakhont and Brahmos, the Yakhont was a reduced range model designed for export, the missile the Russians use is called Onix or Onyx depending on the translation which is a type of precious stone or Jewel. The real Yakhont is limited by export restrictions on guided weapons, whereas the Onix is for Russian use and has no such restrictions.)

    I have heard of a new model of the Smerch that uses wings to extend the glide range to 120-150km without increasing weight.
    avatar
    AbsoluteZero

    Posts : 81
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-01-29
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  AbsoluteZero on Tue May 03, 2011 4:22 am


    They would need to withdraw from the INF treaty to deploy such a weapon, but if the ABM treaty is a cold war dinosaur then the INF treaty could probably be argued to be the same.

    didn't Vladimir Putin hinted in 2007 that Russia would eventually withdraw from the treaty? or was he just using this as a bargaining chip to make the U.S. think twice about its planned ABM system in Europe? But if the Americans decided to go ahead with their European ABM deployment I dont see any reason why Russia should continue its participation with the INF treaty. Besides, other emerging powers like China and India are beginning to invest in such systems.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MLRS vs Smerch

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 03, 2011 5:01 am

    I think part of the argument to withdraw from the INF treaty was that because France and Germany and the UK are not bound by it there is little to stop NATO or China from putting any sort of intermediate range missile on Russias border.

    I also think the Russian MIC knows missiles in the 500-5,500km range bracket would sell very well internationally.

    The US has its own problems and is not interested in developing new missiles in that range to point specifically at Russia, so the actual threat it defends is largely non existent anyway.

    The largest short range threat to Russia would be a US or NATO SSBN in the Med and the INF treaty does nothing about that.

    BTW my apologies for dragging this thread well off topic... my bad. Embarassed

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Grad, Uragan, Smerch MRLS

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:03 pm

    There was a topic some time ago comparing rockets and missiles effectiveness
    in combat and accuracy. In the discussion one westerner believed  ..

    that M270 is better than Smerch ?    
    and that ATACMS was better than ISKANDER?   Shocked

    that is

    M270> Smerch??
    ATACMS > Iskanders.????????????????????????  


    I think his major problem was that he had the misconception that
    GPS guidance + inertial guidance = Very Accurate.  (Aside that also western brainwashed media always show western hardware as unique and unstoppable even if there are better technology in other places).  And that couldn't be more far far from the truth. Actually that is mediocre accuracy at long ranges. The only thing worse is Not having a missile to use at all. Such kind of missiles are far from ideal for long range strategic tactical bombing. Only better use attack in big Zones with concentration of military troops. NATO use their Airforce primary for tactical precision bombing ,specially near civilian zones ,and its navy using cruise missiles but with some limitations and less accuracy . For real accuracy and tactical Bombing you need Missiles or Rockets that have some kind of manual encrypted Radio/TV remote guidance with active homing ,infra Red seekers or radar sensors ,Electronic Optics or laser guidance on its terminal phase and that the rockets or missile have advanced internal mechanical mobility.

    he also assumed the M270 was better logistically than smerch + Iskander ,
    because it could launch not only rocket artillery but also the Big ATACMS ballistic missiles.
    What he ignored is that the M270 launcher can do only one at a time..but not both. It cant carry
    rocket artillery and ATACMS at the same time. So in the end ,you also end with two vehicles . Only advantage or reusing a launcher is repairs cost and training.

    lets see what kind of "Accuracy'' the ATACMS got when used in AFganistan by the US army,
    from their Latest HIMARS (light wheeled version of the M270 launchers) on combat use..



    "On February 14, 2010, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan indicated in a press release
    that it was thought that two rockets fired from a HIMARS ... fell 300 meters short of their intended target and killed 12 civilians during Operation Moshtarak ''


    This clearly show that US latest conventional ballistic missiles are not any better than the Scuds in the IRAQ war that Sadam Used for its terrible accuracy. So is no surprise that in the IRAQ war.. NATO depended a lot of its Airforce for tactical bombing ,because their Tomahawks were not ideal for bombing in cities near civilians zones.

    The interesting thing here is that the accuracy system of the ATACMS is exactly the same system used for US rocket guided artillery in their M-270 system ,That is Inertial Guidance + GPS.  There is also another problem that comes from such kind of guidance ,and is called Electronic Counter Measures. In the First Gulf War for example ,IRAQ bought Russian Jammers  ,that effectively blinded the first generations of Tomahawks cruise missiles,making them to either fall on civilians centers or totally miss IRAQ and fly towards neighboring countries.  Shocked  Russian Electronic COunter measures is something that was  mentioned by the American Media during the war but denied by Pentagon generals as having any relevance in the conflict decades ago ,but today the story is a different one.



    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-031013.html

    For long range tactical precision land attacks ,any missile or Rocket that rely on GPS guidance + inertial nav only ,without any defenses to modern counter measure or Jamming not only lacks precision but is totally useless.such kind of missile will miss a Baseball stadium if programmed to target it ,with a signal loss for more than 30 seconds.
     

    Interestingly the experimental XM29 SADARM ,never went into production. Not mentioned the reasons but not
    hard to imagine why.. didn't worked. here is another important info about M270 ..from wiki

    A Block II variant (initially designated MGM-140C or, previously, M39A3[5]) was designed to carry a payload of 13 [Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) munitions manufactured by Northrop Grumman. However, in late 2003 the U.S. Army terminated the funding for the BAT-equipped ATACMS and therefore the MGM-164A never became fully operational.


    All said ,looks clearly that both M-270 and ATACMS are clearly inferior in every way ,shape or form to any Russian Comparable system.its Big Ballistic missile ATACMS are more comparable with a Scud B with a bit better precision. ballistic missile like the ones Sadam Hussein Used in IRAQ war.  Upgraded SCUD-D that some third world nations have ,apparently have a TV guidance and with a claimed precision of ~50 meters.. iskanders with a ~500km range can pinpoint targets with up to ~5 meters accuracy.that is by any Standard a direct hit ,when is a missile intended for Big Sam positions ,military bases or Buildings. Smile 

    Here is what wiki says about Iskander Combat performance in Russia vs Georgian war in 2008..

    According to the Moscow Centre for Strategy and Technology Analysis, the Iskander-M system was combat-tested in the 2008 South Ossetia war with Georgia and it proved highly effective in destroying military targets and infrastructure. ... the Moscow Defense Brief stated that an Iskander missile was used for a high precision strike on the Georgian  Separate Tank Battalion base in Gori, destroying 28 tanks. Russian officials have denied using of the Iskander missile against Georgia [civilians] ,but official reports testify to the high effectiveness of the Iskander missiles, as one of the most devastating and accurate weapons in the Russian arsenal. The Dutch government's investigation claims that a single, 5 mm fragment from an anti-personnel sub-munition, that was propelled by an Iskander missile, killed Dutch journalist Stan Storimans in Gori, which was home to various military targets and had been almost completely evacuated before the bombardment.

    Smerch are truly Fantastic , and there is nothing US and perhaps Europe NATO? that competes with that or come close...
    with the capabilities and functionality of a Smerch missile. capable of direct hits to tanks or any armored vehicle at 90km distances. And even apparently can fire Rockets with Unmanned Drones inside with a video camera control..for direct attacks
    on any place you need. Perhaps with the mini drone and video camera it could be possible to more easily attack moving targets?

    here is a video..



    About Iskander.. simply i don't think NATO have anything like that.. Encrypted Radio and Satellite guidance for its entire trajectory , inertial guidance and Optical automatic homing on its final phase ,hypersonic mach 7.0 missile ,flying near earth space orbit deploying decoys ,Jammers and EMP defenses.. with extreme maneuverability indeed like too much fun in just one missile..  Very Happy 

    The interesting part is that Russia Combine in their exercises both.. Smerch + iskanders for major impact.




    In a real land conventional conflict,the RUssian army will use the combination of ..
    Smerch with 90km range for Area denial and/or Direct hits of enemy armor and tanks And Toshka
    against massive formations groups up to 120km and Iskander for direct hits from up to ~500km.
    Last but not least the army will be move with the highly mobile TORs-ME2/BUks Sams all around multipurpose air defenses.For extreme distances Land/Sea attacks they can also use Kalibr missiles with ECM defenses and active Radar homing up to 3600km. The airforce Role is even more important but was omitted for simplicity of the discussion. But basically Russian Airforce can use same weapons of the army minus the big ballistic missiles.THe following video show a test done with Brahmos multipurpose super sonic cruise missile ( designed by Russian-India) for people to see what kind of accuracy is possible for Russian/india to achieve with their modern cruise missiles at 300km range.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:17 am

    And even apparently can fire Rockets with Unmanned Drones inside with a video camera control..for direct attacks
    on any place you need. Perhaps with the mini drone and video camera it could be possible to more easily attack moving targets?

    The UAV will mostly be used for detecting and confirming targets and with their 30 minute loiter time at 120km from the launcher they will likely be used for post attack assessment to decide immediately if another attack is needed and also for post attack assessment.

    Personally I think attaching a laser target marker to one means you could launch one to operate fairly high up with a laser target marker to target fixed and moving targets for laser homing attack munitions and missiles.,.. that could be used against moving targets... and fairly cheaply too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:11 am

    GarryB wrote:
    And even apparently can fire Rockets with Unmanned Drones inside with a video camera control..for direct attacks
    on any place you need. Perhaps with the mini drone and video camera it could be possible to more easily attack moving targets?

    The UAV will mostly be used for detecting and confirming targets and with their 30 minute loiter time at 120km from the launcher they will likely be used for post attack assessment to decide immediately if another attack is needed and also for post attack assessment.

    Personally I think attaching a laser target marker to one means  you could launch one to operate fairly high up with a laser target marker to target fixed and moving targets for laser homing attack munitions and missiles.,.. that could be used against moving targets... and fairly cheaply too.


    Definitively that drone could be very useful to guide the artillery even against moving targets..
    Aside i haven't seen any info on Iskander-K , the new version that can fire cruise missiles , is there any detailed information about the cruise missiles Iskander-K and in what way they are different from Kalibrs.. ?
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Zivo on Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:22 am

    Personally I think attaching a laser target marker to one means you could launch one to operate fairly high up with a laser target marker to target fixed and moving targets for laser homing attack munitions and missiles.,.. that could be used against moving targets... and fairly cheaply too.

    Imagine a payload with multiple independently aimed HERMES ATGMs designated to the targets by the UAV.

    Whole armored platoons could be precisely eliminated with very little collateral damage.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:47 am

    Aside i haven't seen any info on Iskander-K , the new version that can fire cruise missiles , is there any detailed information about the cruise missiles Iskander-K and in what way they are different from Kalibrs.. ?

    I suspect the Russians have upgraded the Kalibrs in a similar way that they have adapted the Kh-101 and Kh-102... ie the Iskander-K in my opinion likely are much heavier and have a flight range of 5,000km or more.

    If they don't then unless they fly less than 500km they violate the INF treaty on intermediate range missiles, but I suspect they have longer than 5,500km ranges which means they are not bound by the INF treaty.

    The US of course is bleating about them being a violation of the INF treaty:

    http://en.ria.ru/world/20140130/187045403/US-Alleges-Russian-Missile-Treaty-Violation--Report.html


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    ATCAMS Iskander

    Post  Benya on Sun May 14, 2017 8:02 pm

    Vann7 wrote:Very impressive anti artillery system , Penicillin ,another report...


    https://sputniknews.com/military/201705141053601059-penicillin-artillery-system/





    1)Allows for near instantaneous retaliation to enemy artillery
    2)Can detect massive artillery fire 90% of it.  
    3)Contrary to NATO systems ,is not only significantly faster but also Does not reveal its position to anti radiation missiles and enemy fire is totally passive scanner.
    4)it can detect mortars ,or rocket artillery .
    5) Mass production in 2 year


    This is the kind of winning technology Russia needs. In combination with such small
    4x4 wheeled mortar cannon mounted in small jeeps , This could allow Russia military
    to bring forward close to the front line a really massive artillery fire ,in highly mobile units.
    And produce them is very Huge numbers.. good and good. The Russian army in my opinion
    is getting the coolest things of all , even more than airforce and navy or even space forces.
    You have armata T-14, then T-15 ,kurganets ,BMP-3 then all this small very mobile but very lethal artillery , to fight close to the front line ,and then TOS Flame Throwers , Koalitsiya 152mm artillery and iskanders.  Russia army will have the best tanks ,the best infantry vehicles ,best transport ,best artillery and next generation counter artillery. The only thing missing is something comparable to US MGM-140 ATACMS tactical artillery that have 300km range, that could replace Toshka missiles. and that is very simple and cheap , not made to defeat air defenses but instead to bomb terrorist ,and could be mass produced ,to counter NATO 300km MGM-140 ATACMS rocket artillery ballistic missiles.

    Thank you Vann for posting the video, also read the report by Sputnik, both of them were interesting thumbsup

    Well, it looks like that this system isn't even a radar, which is logical because it cannnot be detected by anti-radar missiles, since it does not emit radiation. Seeing that this system is mounted on a KamAZ chassis, it makes me think that this is a stationary system, made to guard static objects like command points and other military installations. I hope that this "Penicillin" system will implement it on the Kurganets IFV and Boomerang APC platforms, so they will be able to operate alongside them in in the artillery units of motor rifle brigades and divisions.

    BTW I have detected a serious flaw in your post.

    This one:
    Vann7 wrote:The only thing missing is something comparable to US MGM-140 ATACMS tactical artillery that have 300km range, that could replace Toshka missiles. and that is very simple and cheap , not made to defeat air defenses but instead to bomb terrorist ,and could be mass produced ,to counter NATO 300km MGM-140 ATACMS rocket artillery ballistic missiles.

    Have you ever heard of the 9K72 "Iskander" (NATO code: SS-26 "Stone") tactical ballistic missile (TBM) system? I bet you have. It is a direct replacement of the Tochka, and a direct analogue to the ATACMS missile.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1562
    Points : 1562
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 14, 2017 8:20 pm

    Iskander is better than the MGM-140 simply because of a couple of reasons:
    1) quasi ballistic flight path to avoid air defense systems
    2) longer range
    3) launcher system comes in a couple of varieties - BM and Cruise missile form.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Tue May 16, 2017 9:16 pm

    Benya wrote:
    Have you ever heard of the 9K72 "Iskander" (NATO code: SS-26 "Stone") tactical ballistic missile (TBM) system? I bet you have. It is a direct replacement of the Tochka, and a direct analogue to the ATACMS missile.

    Im aware of the iskander .. i even mentioned it.
    But is over kill to use iskander to kill seminaked jihadist in Syria with an Ak-47.
    Get the point? the Americans ATACMS is a very simply rocket artillery system ,
    made to counter terrorist the ISkander with 500km range in the other hand was
    developed to defeat NATO air defenses. gets the point?

    Russia needs to keep their best technology away from NATO noses and eyes. So they
    don't have an opportunity to research how to defeat it. that is not use your best hand
    at the start and leave surprises for last. Iskanders are more ideal for a fight with NATO or Israel
    that is countries with advances air defenses. So Russia have nothing between Toschka and Iskander.  Russia needs and very simple ,very cheap Rocket artillery system that can reach 300 to 350km range.So to counter Americans ATACMS one. which is very simple too , it just flight ballistic path and only use inertial guidance and thats it. is not designed to defeat advanced air defenses. It will be unwise for RUssia to use Iskanders in Syria ,unless their target is NATO or Israel and in case of a major open war with them. So is obviously far more advanced and state of the art technology ,better than US ballistic missiles and this is the problem. That Russia needs a very simple ballistic missile that they can mass produce in huge numbers for being very cheap ,to fight terrorist in middle east. with up to 300km range for Area denial ,and that can be used in big numbers and that Russia will not be worried at all ,the technology being captured.  is a huge mistake for Russia to reveal their best technology to NATO ,when bombing terrorist , because they have all kind of
    spying radars and sensors in syria to monitor and spy on Russia technology. Launching Kalibers was ok one time but not any more ,because NATO should be now having a lot of sensors across IRAQ just to spy on Russian cruise missiles to see what kind of Infra red signature they produce ,their speed and how they fly.. etc. This is invaluable information for Russia enemies. that significantly can help them develop counter technology against it.

    S-400s is a different matter ,they there only in Syria case Russia military base under attack. and thats ok . they have not been used yet and it is a good thing. To keep your best technology for a surprise. and not reveal it so easily ,so your enemies can study it.

    In fact Russia should just buy Chinese rocket cheap artillery ,they already have something like
    that with 300km range.

    http://www.bestchinanews.com/Military/3469.html

    Is not meant to defeat air defenses ,even though could be used in mass attacks to destroy a military base. is intended to deny area to enemy. to target soft targets. that is. Is is convenient because can do the job , is very cheap ,and does not have any technology
    that anyone have to be worried that gets stolen. So is far better if you can do the job of area denial with a cheap missile that cost just 20,000 to 50,000 dollars, instead of one that cost 5 millions dollars. like Iskanders should cost. and the old Scuds missiles are too big. Russia needs long range artillery in the 300km range ,that can be mass produced in big numbers and is very cheap and easy to produce and requires next to no maintenance.
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Benya on Tue May 16, 2017 11:16 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Get the point? the Americans ATACMS is a very simply rocket artillery system ,
    made to counter terrorist the ISkander with 500km range in the other hand was
    developed to defeat NATO air defenses. gets the point?

    Developed? Hahahahahaha...  Laughing  lol!

    It was deployed to Kaliningrad to counter the AEGIS Ashore system planned to be built in Poland. Deployed, not developed.

    Vann7 wrote:Im aware of the iskander .. i even mentioned it.
    But is over kill to use iskander to kill seminaked jihadist in Syria with an Ak-47.

    Well... There is actually no kill like overkill Very Happy





    BTW jokes (and memes) aside, only a lunatic would fire a TBM at terrorists. Single terrorists can be picked off by snipers, and if really needed, plus if they are in groups, an precision artillery strike can be called upon them with the use of guided projectiles (M982 Excalibur for USA/NATO, and Krasnopol for Russia), simple as that.


    Vann7 wrote:Russia needs to keep their best technology away from NATO noses and eyes. So they
    don't have an opportunity to research how to defeat it. that is not use your best hand
    at the start and leave surprises for last. Iskanders are more ideal for a fight with NATO or Israel
    that is countries with advances air defenses. So Russia have nothing between Toschka and Iskander.  Russia needs and very simple ,very cheap Rocket artillery system that can reach 300 to 350km range.So to counter Americans ATACMS one. which is very simple too , it just flight ballistic path and only use inertial guidance and thats it. is not designed to defeat advanced air defenses. It will be unwise for RUssia to use Iskanders in Syria ,unless their target is NATO or Israel and in case of a major open war with them. So is obviously far more advanced and state of the art technology ,better than US ballistic missiles and this is the problem. That Russia needs a very simple ballistic missile that they can mass produce in huge numbers for being very cheap ,to fight terrorist in middle east. with up to 300km range for Area denial ,and that can be used in big numbers and that Russia will not be worried at all ,the technology being captured.  is a huge mistake for Russia to reveal their best technology to NATO ,when bombing terrorist , because they have all kind of
    spying radars and sensors in syria to monitor and spy on Russia technology. Launching Kalibers was ok one time but not any more ,because NATO should be now having a lot of sensors across IRAQ just to spy on Russian cruise missiles to see what kind of Infra red signature they produce ,their speed and how they fly.. etc. This is invaluable information for Russia enemies. that significantly can help them develop counter technology against it.

    Of course, why they would deploy it to Syria to expose it to NATO espionage?

    Vann7 wrote:Is not meant to defeat air defenses ,even though could be used in mass attacks to destroy a military base. is intended to deny area to enemy. to target soft targets.

    For area denial? Not really...

    It is intended to destroy a multitude of the enemy's critical assets/strategic targets like bridges, factories, other industrial facilities, troop concentrations, tank collumns, air defense systems, military airfields, railway stations, ammo dumps, radar installations, communication nodes, command posts/centers etc.

    It is used to slow the enemy's advance, and to disrupt/weaken its rear. This is why there is an Iskander brigade under the command of each combined arms army of the Russian ground forces.

    Speaking about Iskander brigades, if – as you say – Iskander is really an overkill compared to the Tochka, then why the hell the Russian Army did decided to rearm ALL of their missile brigades from Tochka to Iskander?

    Vann7 wrote:So is far better if you can do the job of area denial with a cheap missile that cost just 20,000 to 50,000 dollars, instead of one that cost 5 millions dollars. like Iskanders should cost. and the old Scuds missiles are too big. Russia needs long range artillery in the 300km range ,that can be mass produced in big numbers and is very cheap and easy to produce and requires next to no maintenance.

    This statement of yours is utter BS.

    Conventional artillery with guided shells​ can perform precision strikes up to 40-50 kms. 300 kms is in range of the Iskander, so if it is a real high priority/value target, it could be destroyed by it with ease. But if you really want to fill the gap between 50-500 kms, I'm pretty sure that they have developed some guided missiles for the Smerch MLRS, so go and Google it.

    BTW Vann, I would highly advise you to think logically, if you don't want to be considered as a troll not by me, but by others here.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 20, 2017 4:51 am

    Benya wrote:
    This is why there is an Iskander brigade under the command of each combined arms army of the Russian ground forces.Speaking about Iskander brigades, if – as you say – Iskander is really an overkill compared to the Tochka, then why the hell the Russian Army did decided to rearm ALL of their missile brigades from Tochka to Iskander?  


    Probably because for the simple reason that they have nothing between them. But Rocket Artillery with 300km range do exist. chinese have it. And as i explained to you , Iskanders is too advanced for using it in low level wars, it even have EMP counter electronics. If Russia for example use Iskanders in Syria , it will be teaching NATO how to defeat them as soon they fired. Because there are antennas and spying hardware across Turkey border and in Cyprus and in Israel border monitoring every launch of any missile by Russia. If they can detect the heat signature of Iskanders , and the electronic signature, they can develop radars and special sensors to differentiate between an Iskander and other type of less advanced ballistic missiles. Is all about not showing your best hand at the start. im surprised idiots like you do not understand this concept. In wars you always needs to keep surprises for your enemies .
    IF Russia go and start using Iskanders in low level wars ,with US allies , then it will help them understand how to counter it. It was even spoken in forums of military hardware ,that NATO was trying to lure Russia into using their S-400s , so they can observe the missiles signature and how they operate. NATO itself have told have learned a lot about Russia military and their capabilities by observing /spying on Russia in Ukraine and Syria. So is a big big mistake
    to teach your enemies too much. So shut up yourself if you can't understand such basic tactics 101 in wars. You need to keep your best technology for last , and Iskander is Russia best ballistic non nuclear missile for ground attacks.. but can be armed with nukes too..



    This statement of yours is utter BS.

    Conventional artillery with guided shells​ can perform precision strikes up to 40-50 kms. 300 kms is in range of the Iskander, so if it is a real high priority/value target, it could be destroyed by it with ease. But if you really want to fill the gap between 50-500 kms, I'm pretty sure that they have developed some guided missiles for the Smerch MLRS, so go and Google it. BTW Vann, I would highly advise you to think logically, if you don't want to be considered as a troll not by me, but by others here.


    Is not me the one with BS.. sorry dude but you know nothing of military tactics.
    China does have rocket artillery with ~300km range. Americans too. Only Russia don't have
    those.

    here Area suppression artillery with ~300km range by CHINA



    So stop opening your mouth if you can't understand tactics 101. ISkanders are over kill ,
    too expensive and not ideal for Area denial ,area suppression. clearly the author of the video
    reveals the artillery can do Area suppression.  Russia latest rocket artillery in service Tornado is only 120km range. So it will be not good to have your enemy hitting you from farther distance (120km vs 300km) and you unable to fire back at highly mobile infantry targets.
    So good luck trying to defeat with Iskanders 20 to 30 artillery systems of those in motion.

    They will be raining rockets on your head and iskanders will be missing mobile targets. is not ideal for that. Rocket artillery is for area denial ,area suppression. Iskanders is for destroying strategic fortified static targets. Radars or static air defenses or military bases but not for soft targets in motion. So iskanders is not an option for are supression or area denial, those are tactical missiles instead.  you need cheap ,simple massive fire of rocket artillery for that. So Russia will be in a major disadvantage if fight a country with 300km range ,area supression rocket artillery. So the enemy needs to be kept as far away as possible. and iskanders is not designed for that. to deny entry into any area but rocket artillery it is.

    So is surprising Russia is not working to counter weapons like AR3 from China ,that they offering to anyone who wants it.. including middle east.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 20, 2017 10:30 am

    So is surprising Russia is not working to counter weapons like AR3 from China ,that they offering to anyone who wants it.. including middle east.

    Think about it Vann... do you think a counter to a Chinese ballistic missile would be another Chinese ballistic missile?

    Or do you think the counter to a ballistic missile might be something like a TOR or BUK in service for the last 30 odd years...

    The Russian military does not need any foreign artillery to fill any gaps.

    BTW even if China has ballistic missiles that can reach 300km they don't have the situational awareness on the battlefield to find point targets at that distance to engage at that range.

    Russia has had cruise missiles for decades but their ability to fight a war and hit targets deep behind enemy lines using recon assets has been in question... Syria has erased those questions... their systems work.

    China has yet to prove the same.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 635
    Points : 640
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Location : Canada

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Project Canada on Sat May 20, 2017 2:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    So is surprising Russia is not working to counter weapons like AR3 from China ,that they offering to anyone who wants it.. including middle east.

    Think about it Vann... do you think a counter to a Chinese ballistic missile would be another Chinese ballistic missile?
    .

    Please correct me if I am wrong but is AR3 a ballistic missile? My impression is its a rocket artillery with 300km range, I think it wouldn't hurt Russia if they develop a Tornado version with that range and at least have something to compete with the Chinese in the international arms market.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1562
    Points : 1562
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat May 20, 2017 6:23 pm

    It could very well be a rocket artillery. I Think though it flies in a basic ballistic path. Anyway, such a system is large and heavy and is dealt with by something similar that has a quasi ballistic path and a guided munition that guarantees a hit. Russia needs something like the Polonez system from Belarus.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 21, 2017 1:14 am

    Please correct me if I am wrong but is AR3 a ballistic missile? My impression is its a rocket artillery with 300km range, I think it wouldn't hurt Russia if they develop a Tornado version with that range and at least have something to compete with the Chinese in the international arms market.

    If it has no guidance or (gyro) stabilisation then it will be horribly inaccurate and only effective at much shorter ranges than 300km or only be of any use if you get 200 batteries to fire at one aim point together against a large area target like a small town.

    Smerch rockets are ballistic and use gyro correction to keep the salvos closer together to improve their effect on target.

    Point targets at 500km or less can be engaged with Iskander already... there is little value in developing rocket artillery to hit targets at 300km as that will make them huge and heavy and greatly reduce the amount of payload they deliver. A shorter range weapon with a larger payload is vastly more effective.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Sun May 21, 2017 3:25 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Point targets at 500km or less can be engaged with Iskander already... there is little value in developing rocket artillery to hit targets at 300km as that will make them huge and heavy and greatly reduce the amount of payload they deliver. A shorter range weapon with a larger payload is vastly more effective.

    Iskanders are useless against Mobile forces that are not concentrated but very dispersed. the economic cost of launching 8 rockets vs 8 iskanders will be astronomical and
    Russia doesn't have more than a couple of hundred of iskanders if not less.. so that will be ludicrous Russia will use iskanders to target soft targets. If for example you have an invading dispersed army ,300km away but clearly moving in your direction and you already at war, then super long range artillery will be ideal for it. for suppressing Area.

    And you can make many thousands of those rockets ,since they are cheap.  In the other hand Iskaners are not cheap. it can cost you each one a million dollar or more ,reason why Russia have them in limited quantities.

    If you look at the Syria experience ,you will see that to defeat an army of terrorist ,not even 30,000 bombings are enough. Imagine if Russia started to follow your logic and use iskanders
    to fight terrorist? they will have used all of them withing the first 2 to 3 hours of fight .
    in a war that last years. So this is why the roles of ballistic missiles and Rocket artillery are not the same and neither one can replace the other. One is for defeating Advanced air defenses.
    and the other is to supress very large areas where concentrations of enemy forces are.


    Just think about it.. an Iskander needs to travel to space first 50km above ,before going down.
    what a waste of time, the enemy does not have air defenses why use Iskanders? in wars also Economic of scales is very important. if you only have 200 to 300 iskanders. then it will be better to use them to defeat NATO in Europe and not in middle east. there could be times were is not safe for airforce to fly for any side ,so the bombing have to be done all with pure artillery power. and the one with larger range will have the upper hand ,if accuracy is about the same in both sides. Because Rocket artillery is significantly more cheaper than Iskander ,and significantly easier to produce in time of war , then for every ISkander ,that have computers ,and counter electronics and needs to be programmed you ,you could produce about  100x rockets of those. So there is a place for Long Range rocket artillery regardless of iskanders.
    Rocket artillery allows you to bomb enemy positions ,to suppress a Big area with massive numbers of rockets without risk of having your planes shut down.  if Russia had hundred of thousands of iskanders and they grow in trees , ,not expensive to produce, then you could say screw it. use this like artillery , that will be a real fireworks ,but is not the case. Rocket artillery goal is massive fire.  Is like the argument of why not make all armor T-90s ? and why  buy BMP-2?  one is significantly more mobile and more cheaper and can be produced in way larger numbers and in less time and for soft or light targets a BMP-2 is enough.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 22, 2017 3:54 am

    Iskanders are useless against Mobile forces that are not concentrated but very dispersed.

    What makes you think that?

    Why do you think an unguided rocket can hit such a target but a guided missile cannot?

    That is like saying an ATGM like Kornet can't hit a moving target at 6km range but an SPG-9 recoilless rocket launcher can... are you drunk?

    the economic cost of launching 8 rockets vs 8 iskanders will be astronomical and
    Russia doesn't have more than a couple of hundred of iskanders if not less..

    They used several Iskanders in the conflict in Georgia... they are obviously not too expensive to actually use.

    so that will be ludicrous Russia will use iskanders to target soft targets. If for example you have an invading dispersed army ,300km away but clearly moving in your direction and you already at war, then super long range artillery will be ideal for it. for suppressing Area.

    The standard warhead for the Iskander is a cluster munition warhead... which is ideal for engaging soft targets.

    Invading dispersed Army is a contradiction in terms... a dispersed army is a weak easy to destroy army... army forces concentrate to fight, to overcome enemy positions and groups.

    Every time they group you can hit them.

    Superlong range artillery is a little stupid... a bit like wasting money to make a rifle shoot 20km range... when a 152mm gun can already do the job.

    Widely dispersed enemy forces should be engaged by air power or local forces.

    And you can make many thousands of those rockets ,since they are cheap. In the other hand Iskaners are not cheap. it can cost you each one a million dollar or more ,reason why Russia have them in limited quantities.

    Vann... a Smerch rocket weighs about 815kgs and delivers a 90-100kg warhead to a target 90km away. To make it a 300km range weapon you would need to have rockets weighing several tons mounting super light warheads in the 10-20kg weight range... they would be useless. They would be expensive and pointless because to have any chance of actually hitting anything you would need to fire thousands of them at a time so they wont even be cheaper anymore.

    If you look at the Syria experience ,you will see that to defeat an army of terrorist ,not even 30,000 bombings are enough. Imagine if Russia started to follow your logic and use iskanders
    to fight terrorist?

    If you look at the experience in Syria lots of cruise missiles were used to hit enemy terrorist HQs, Comms centres, ammo dumps. For most of the conflict however unguided dumb rocket artillery is rarely used because the enemy is amongst friendly or civilian forces... a 300km range Chinese artillery rocket would just kill indiscriminately... you might as well drop nukes and just kill everyone... and no I am not actually suggesting that... just pointing out how stupid it would be to use either.

    One is for defeating Advanced air defenses.
    and the other is to supress very large areas where concentrations of enemy forces are.

    Might come as a shock Vann but just because an artillery rocket has a flight range of 300km does not mean it is more effective at killing people than a 20km range Grad rocket.

    The 300km rocket is likely 100 times more expensive and have a smaller payload and therefore be less lethal.

    Just think about it.. an Iskander needs to travel to space first 50km above ,before going down.
    what a waste of time, the enemy does not have air defenses why use Iskanders?

    Space is over 100km and there is no way the Iskander flys at 50km altitude.

    Having dumb rockets able to fly 300km means basically using Scud rockets... to get it to fly 300km with a decent payload (ie 500kgs) you need a missile the size of the Scud.
    If you want a smaller rocket you have to have a smaller payload.

    in wars also Economic of scales is very important.

    The economics of war is not about how much something costs, but what sort of return you get from it. $5 billion dollars worth of super Ebola dropped on the enemy that wipes them out completely is money well spent.

    Money spent making artillery rockets able to fly 300km which makes them big and heavy and reduces their payload to a useless level and without guidance means they are worse than useless... even if they only cost half a million dollars each.

    An Su-25 can fly 300km and drop 8 x 500kg bombs on widely dispersed enemy forces for rather less than any new artillery rocket China has.

    Because Rocket artillery is significantly more cheaper than Iskander ,and significantly easier to produce in time of war , then for every ISkander ,that have computers ,and counter electronics and needs to be programmed you ,you could produce about 100x rockets of those. So there is a place for Long Range rocket artillery regardless of iskanders.

    At 300km an unguided rocket wont hit a target... 10,000 unguided rockets wont hit the target... the USAF proved that during WWII with its thousand bomber air raids that missed km square ball bearing factories repeatedly despite super bomb sights and complete air control over specific areas.

    Rocket artillery allows you to bomb enemy positions ,to suppress a Big area with massive numbers of rockets without risk of having your planes shut down.

    Except that Russian aircraft have proven their ability to hit point targets with dumb bombs using new avionics... Chinese 300km range artillery has not proven any ability to hit targets... point, moving, or dispersed.

    if Russia had hundred of thousands of iskanders and they grow in trees , ,not expensive to produce, then you could say screw it. use this like artillery , that will be a real fireworks ,but is not the case. Rocket artillery goal is massive fire.

    Rocket artillery has very specific goals... one of them is not firing at targets 300km away... finding targets 100km is difficult enough... why would an artillery battery waste its fire on a target that is that far away? Are they really such cowards? Is ISIS or NATO that powerful that they need to operate in another country to launch their attack?

    Is like the argument of why not make all armor T-90s ? and why buy BMP-2? one is significantly more mobile and more cheaper and can be produced in way larger numbers and in less time and for soft or light targets a BMP-2 is enough.

    The whole point of the Armata platform is to allow units to operate in very dangerous places against very well armed enemies... BMP-2s would not last very long, so T-14s make rather more sense.

    What you are actually saying is that 9mm pistols have too short a range... why not give them 20m long barrels so soldiers can shoot their pistols at the enemy that is 2km away.

    They wont see enemy soldiers 2km away and even if they could they will be more interested in dealing with the soldier right in front of them that is actually a threat right now rather than worrying about enemy forces so far away.

    Russia does not need thousands of Iskanders... NATO does not have that many HQs or Comms centres in need of hitting.

    Russia also has cruise missiles and a range of air to ground missiles bombs and other weapons.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 22, 2017 5:46 am

    Should add that this thread is about Gun artillery, not rocket artillery...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Thu May 25, 2017 7:48 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Iskanders are useless against Mobile forces that are not concentrated but very dispersed.

    What makes you think that?

    Why do you think an unguided rocket can hit such a target but a guided missile cannot?

    That is like saying an ATGM like Kornet can't hit a moving target at 6km range but an SPG-9 recoilless rocket launcher can... are you drunk?

    the economic cost of launching 8 rockets vs 8 iskanders will be astronomical and
    Russia doesn't have more than a couple of hundred of iskanders if not less..

    They used several Iskanders in the conflict in Georgia... they are obviously not too expensive to actually use.

    so that will be ludicrous Russia will use iskanders to target soft targets. If for example you have an invading dispersed army ,300km away but clearly moving in your direction and you already at war, then super long range artillery will be ideal for it. for suppressing Area.

    The standard warhead for the Iskander is a cluster munition warhead... which is ideal for engaging soft targets.

    Invading dispersed Army is a contradiction in terms... a dispersed army is a weak easy to destroy army... army forces concentrate to fight, to overcome enemy positions and groups.

    Every time they group you can hit them.

    Superlong range artillery is a little stupid... a bit like wasting money to make a rifle shoot 20km range... when a 152mm gun can already do the job.

    Widely dispersed enemy forces should be engaged by air power or local forces.

    And you can make many thousands of those rockets ,since they are cheap.  In the other hand Iskaners are not cheap. it can cost you each one a million dollar or more ,reason why Russia have them in limited quantities.

    Vann... a Smerch rocket weighs about 815kgs and delivers a 90-100kg warhead to a target 90km away. To make it a 300km range weapon you would need to have rockets weighing several tons mounting super light warheads in the 10-20kg weight range... they would be useless. They would be expensive and pointless because to have any chance of actually hitting anything you would need to fire thousands of them at a time so they wont even be cheaper anymore.

    If you look at the Syria experience ,you will see that to defeat an army of terrorist ,not even 30,000 bombings are enough. Imagine if Russia started to follow your logic and use iskanders
    to fight terrorist?

    If you look at the experience in Syria lots of cruise missiles were used to hit enemy terrorist HQs, Comms centres, ammo dumps. For most of the conflict however unguided dumb rocket artillery is rarely used because the enemy is amongst friendly or civilian forces... a 300km range Chinese artillery rocket would just kill indiscriminately... you might as well drop nukes and just kill everyone... and no I am not actually suggesting that... just pointing out how stupid it would be to use either.

    One is for defeating Advanced air defenses.
    and the other is to supress very large areas where concentrations of enemy forces are.

    Might come as a shock Vann but just because an artillery rocket has a flight range of 300km does not mean it is more effective at killing people than a 20km range Grad rocket.

    The 300km rocket is likely 100 times more expensive and have a smaller payload and therefore be less lethal.

    Just think about it.. an Iskander needs to travel to space first 50km above ,before going down.
    what a waste of time, the enemy does not have air defenses why use Iskanders?

    Space is over 100km and there is no way the Iskander flys at 50km altitude.

    Having dumb rockets able to fly 300km means basically using Scud rockets... to get it to fly 300km with a decent payload (ie 500kgs) you need a missile the size of the Scud.
    If you want a smaller rocket you have to have a smaller payload.

    in wars also Economic of scales is very important.

    The economics of war is not about how much something costs, but what sort of return you get from it. $5 billion dollars worth of super Ebola dropped on the enemy that wipes them out completely is money well spent.

    Money spent making artillery rockets able to fly 300km which makes them big and heavy and reduces their payload to a useless level and without guidance means they are worse than useless... even if they only cost half a million dollars each.

    An Su-25 can fly 300km and drop 8 x 500kg bombs on widely dispersed enemy forces for rather less than any new artillery rocket China has.

    Because Rocket artillery is significantly more cheaper than Iskander ,and significantly easier to produce in time of war , then for every ISkander ,that have computers ,and counter electronics and needs to be programmed you ,you could produce about  100x rockets of those. So there is a place for Long Range rocket artillery regardless of iskanders.

    At 300km an unguided rocket wont hit a target... 10,000 unguided rockets wont hit the target... the USAF proved that during WWII with its thousand bomber air raids that missed km square ball bearing factories repeatedly despite super bomb sights and complete air control over specific areas.

    Rocket artillery allows you to bomb enemy positions ,to suppress a Big area with massive numbers of rockets without risk of having your planes shut down.

    Except that Russian aircraft have proven their ability to hit point targets with dumb bombs using new avionics... Chinese 300km range artillery has not proven any ability to hit targets... point, moving, or dispersed.

    if Russia had hundred of thousands of iskanders and they grow in trees , ,not expensive to produce, then you could say screw it. use this like artillery , that will be a real fireworks ,but is not the case. Rocket artillery goal is massive fire.

    Rocket artillery has very specific goals... one of them is not firing at targets 300km away... finding targets 100km is difficult enough... why would an artillery battery waste its fire on a target that is that far away? Are they really such cowards?  Is ISIS or NATO that powerful that they need to operate in another country to launch their attack?

    Is like the argument of why not make all armor T-90s ? and why  buy BMP-2?  one is significantly more mobile and more cheaper and can be produced in way larger numbers and in less time and for soft or light targets a BMP-2 is enough.

    The whole point of the Armata platform is to allow units to operate in very dangerous places against very well armed enemies... BMP-2s would not last very long, so T-14s make rather more sense.

    What you are actually saying is that 9mm pistols have too short a range... why not give them 20m long barrels so soldiers can shoot their pistols at the enemy that is 2km away.

    They wont see enemy soldiers 2km away and even if they could they will be more interested in dealing with the soldier right in front of them that is actually a threat right now rather than worrying about enemy forces so far away.

    Russia does not need thousands of Iskanders... NATO does not have that many HQs or Comms centres in need of hitting.

    Russia also has cruise missiles and a range of air to ground missiles bombs and other weapons.

    Again Iskanders ,neither cruise missiles replace artillery ,any kind of it. each one have its own
    place. this is why they exist. otherwise will NOT be produced.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Vann7 on Thu May 25, 2017 7:50 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Iskanders are useless against Mobile forces that are not concentrated but very dispersed.

    What makes you think that?

    Why do you think an unguided rocket can hit such a target but a guided missile cannot?

    That is like saying an ATGM like Kornet can't hit a moving target at 6km range but an SPG-9 recoilless rocket launcher can... are you drunk?

    .

    Iskanders are designed for static targets ,NOT mobile ones. Rocket Artillery for Area suppression and not necessarily to hit specific targets ,they are more forcing enemy to retreat ,but to push enemy farther. if they hit something great.. but if not ,it will still do the job of pushing enemy farther to avoid being wiped. ,So i don't see your point. like always your really
    bad in logical reasoning.



    the economic cost of launching 8 rockets vs 8 iskanders will be astronomical and
    Russia doesn't have more than a couple of hundred of iskanders if not less..

    They used several Iskanders in the conflict in Georgia... they are obviously not too expensive to actually use.


    Yes just a couple of dozens . majority were Toschka and with a few Iskanders to take down
    Georgia defenses. Not for mobile targets ,but for Static targets. ok? and they will be expensive
    if used in the hundreds or Thousands like Rocket Artillery are usually used. in long wars. Already Syrian army had used thousands of them. Russia in the short time its airforce is in Syria have dropped about 30,000 bombs. SO it will be incredibly ridiculous expensive to use Iskanders every day , Russia neither have them in the thousands and they for being advanced
    as i told you a million of times is not ideal for targeting terrorist . You need to use cheap primitive weapons against cheap primitive targets, this is not rocket science .

    [quote]

    so that will be ludicrous Russia will use iskanders to target soft targets. If for example you have an invading dispersed army ,300km away but clearly moving in your direction and you already at war, then super long range artillery will be ideal for it. for suppressing Area.

    The standard warhead for the Iskander is a cluster munition warhead... which is ideal for engaging soft targets.

    Invading dispersed Army is a contradiction in terms... a dispersed army is a weak easy to destroy army... army forces concentrate to fight, to overcome enemy positions and groups.

    Every time they group you can hit them.

    Superlong range artillery is a little stupid... a bit like wasting money to make a rifle shoot 20km range... when a 152mm gun can already do the job.

    Widely dispersed enemy forces should be engaged by air power or local forces.



    And the Syrian war clearly you are clearly wrong. Terrorist took Palmyra away of Russia in a very humiliating defeat in just 24 hours , exactly using very fast mobile forces in jeeps. The Russian airforce have been in several times unable to stop ISIS ,when they move very fast and dispersed , So those Iskanders will not be effective against fast small targets period. and a dispersed terrorist army is not weak.. Only weak if you are an ignorant. Because a column of suicide bombers in pickup trucks , charging at you is not weak. it can wipe an entire military base. Suicide bombers in armored pickup trucks are even more lethal than a cruise missile.
    because if they don't intercepted they don't miss and their explosion can be more powerful that Russia biggest dropped bomb in Syria . 1 Ton of TNT in a suicide truck will wipe an entire military airport or military base. the only thing weak are your arguments. Simply you need to learn more about real world combat tactics. What ISIS is doing Syria with pick up trucks full of tnt ,can be done in a mass scale level. just one that manage to enter in your military base ,will wipe all your army. Kornets not always work. next to useless against terrorist charging in the thousands your positions. Overwhelming your defenses is pretty simply but very effective tactic. weak only if you have no clue of combat tactics .

    this is not weak.



    100% of the military bases that the Syrian army have lost have always been to suicide bombers trucks , reinforced with armor to resist a kornet. Such tactics could be unstoppable
    if done in mass . they even using tanks for suicide attacks imagine that. Good luck trying to stop a fast moving tank in the desert with an iskander. is simply not designed for moving targets.






    Vann... a Smerch rocket weighs about 815kgs and delivers a 90-100kg warhead to a target 90km away. To make it a 300km range weapon you would need to have rockets weighing several tons mounting super light warheads in the 10-20kg weight range... they would be useless. They would be expensive and pointless because to have any chance of actually hitting anything you would need to fire thousands of them at a time so they wont even be cheaper anymore.


    Not true. Americans And CHINA have rocket artillery with 300km range, you are only making excuses. If they develop such system is not for fun they do it. simply you are wrong. they are very useful.




    If you look at the experience in Syria lots of cruise missiles were used to hit enemy terrorist HQs, Comms centres, ammo dumps. For most of the conflict however unguided dumb rocket artillery is rarely used because the enemy is amongst friendly or civilian forces... a 300km range Chinese artillery rocket would just kill indiscriminately... you might as well drop nukes and just kill everyone... and no I am not actually suggesting that... just pointing out how stupid it would be to use either.


    yes an a lot of cruise missiles. an incredible waste of money. see what the americans tomahawks achieved in Syria? $120 millions wasted for nothing in the last attack after 60 cruise missiles. super long range rocket artillery ~300km with GPS/Glonass could do the same job and infinitively more cheaper.



    One is for defeating Advanced air defenses.
    and the other is to supress very large areas where concentrations of enemy forces are.

    Might come as a shock Vann but just because an artillery rocket has a flight range of 300km does not mean it is more effective at killing people than a 20km range Grad rocket.

    The 300km rocket is likely 100 times more expensive and have a smaller payload and therefore be less lethal.


    Not true.
    An Iskander is a SPACE MISSILE ,and it have very advanced technology ,sensors ,decoys ,
    counter eletronics ,is an advance piece of engineering. is hypersonic , satelite navigation and Optical sensors and emp counter defenses. very very expensive. while a rocket is just a tube with a lot of fuel and with gps navigation on the head. Significantly more cheaper than a cruise missile or a way more expensive Space missile. Iskanders are made to evade advanced air defenses and destroy them. terrorist or invading moving armies do not have air defenses that could intercept a wave of rockets.



    Having dumb rockets able to fly 300km means basically using Scud rockets... to get it to fly 300km with a decent payload (ie 500kgs) you need a missile the size of the Scud.
    If you want a smaller rocket you have to have a smaller payload.


    Just more Bullocks.
    I already show you Chinese 300km artillery ,and americans also have similar ones. A scud is not artillery is a ballistic missile , their goals are different stop wasting my time. with weak arguments.

    [quote ]

    The economics of war is not about how much something costs, but what sort of return you get from it. $5 billion dollars worth of super Ebola dropped on the enemy that wipes them out completely is money well spent.


    Now you are insane. Why the fuck you will use Ebola on your own land?
    are you insane? I can't see why you are so short sighted and stubborn into thinking
    an Iskander can replace Rocket artillery it doesn't .


    Money spent making artillery rockets able to fly 300km which makes them big and heavy and reduces their payload to a useless level and without guidance means they are worse than useless... even if they only cost half a million dollars each.

    An Su-25 can fly 300km and drop 8 x 500kg bombs on widely dispersed enemy forces for rather less than any new artillery rocket China has.

    Only your arguments are useless, CHina and NATO have 300km artillery rockets.
    and is not for nothing. they do see the need for it. If NATO develops very strong air defenses
    in a zone and backs it with airforce ,then those SU-25 will be grounded. There can be scenarios
    when neither side can use airforce ,if both airspace are well protected. so you need to have very strong ,long range artillery so you can hit the enemy at long ranges. in mass scale attacks
    something Iskanders can't do. for economic reasons/inventory numbers too. and being impractical for area suppression . Rocket artillery major role is to PUSH back enemies ,to stop advancing armies. creating a wall of fire between you and them. if they hit enemy.. it will be great ,but it will still do the job if just push them back. Iskanders in the other hand is for destroying important fortifications,airports or static enemy concentrations very far away. but is not designed to stop advancing very spread armies that do not care about dying like ISIS.



    At 300km an unguided rocket wont hit a target... 10,000 unguided rockets wont hit the target... the USAF proved that during WWII with its thousand bomber air raids that missed km square ball bearing factories repeatedly despite super bomb sights and complete air control over specific areas.


    But thats is not their major role. Rocket artillery is not designed for pin point precision attacks. but for Area Suppression. just get this at least right for once. that Russia have custom warheads for targeting armor is a different thing. and chinese 300km artillery have satellite navigation guidance. Rocket artillery is for stacking a lot of them ,firing them in mass attacks
    and cover a huge area to either push enemy farther ,stop and invasion or kill them. but is not
    for specific targeting attacks. sight. No


    Except that Russian aircraft have proven their ability to hit point targets with dumb bombs using new avionics... Chinese 300km range artillery has not proven any ability to hit targets... point, moving, or dispersed.


    Except that there will be times where airforce will be too risk ,when enemy airspace very well defended. So if for example Russia was to fight Israel , in a conventional war , it will be very risky to use your airforce first , you need first to take down enemy airdefenses first. this is Iskanders job. But to stop an invading army or cover a very large area ,you use Rocket artillery. So ballistic missiles ,neither airforce Does not replace the need for very strong rocket artillery . and if your enemies have 300km range artillery they constantly move ,you will be very sorry for not having long range rocket artillery like that too. Since the enemy
    can hit your positions in mass scale attacks with a mobil dispersed army from a safer distance.

    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Regular on Thu May 25, 2017 5:59 pm

    Whole discussion about nothing.
    Vann7, when it comes to artillery, Russia sure does know thing or two.
    Chinese artillery is.. well chinese.. Nothing good comes out of them, Russia buying Chinese MLRS is like Bentley driver upgrading his car to Skoda.
    There will be more versions of Tornado MLRS, latest one has 200 km range.
    If Russia wants similar design to Chinese MLRS, they can buy Polonez MLRS from Belarus.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 26, 2017 1:01 pm

    Again Iskanders ,neither cruise missiles replace artillery ,any kind of it. each one have its own
    place. this is why they exist. otherwise will NOT be produced.

    Each has capabilities and issues, and some things become obsolete and others become more useful with different new capabilites.

    The high precision of the Iskander and cruise missiles means they are effective against point targets and are suited to targets at extended ranges.

    Artillery on the other hand generally supports ground operations... the problem is that 300km is well beyond the interests of any ground commander in the field... things happening 300km from his position are not his problem and he would have no information about things that far away from his forces.

    The local air base would be interested in targets 300km away because aircraft operate over a much larger area, but tube or rocket artillery wont care what is happening 300km away.

    Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will be used against enemy infrastructure deep behind enemy lines so 300km Plus range is useful and indeed necessary. The local air base will also be interested in such targets too with MiG-35 and Su-30/35 and Su-34 will be attacking such targets.

    Su-25s will not because Su-25s support Russian forces operations so whereever the Su-25 will be operating there will likely be a Grad or Smerch battery within 20-40km away to support the ground forces the Su-25 is supporting.

    Enemy MLRS will be operating within 40km of the front line too, so it can support its forces with rocket bombardments... that means that a Smerch battery operating 40km back from their own forces will be 80km from those MLRS batteries so the US batteries will be able to hit front line forces with rockets but only be able to hit Smerch batteries with ATCMs... which of course will be shot down with TOR... Smile

    Smerch can hit the US batteries with standard rockets... well within their 90km range.


    Iskanders are designed for static targets ,NOT mobile ones.

    So the anti armour submunitions they can carry are for tanks bolted to the ground, or base guard vehicles at the front gate?

    Please describe how Chinese 300km range artillery rockets are able to hit mobile targets.

    as i told you a million of times is not ideal for targeting terrorist . You need to use cheap primitive weapons against cheap primitive targets, this is not rocket science .

    And I have told you that targeting terrorists requires precision not artillery rockets 300km range or 3km range.

    NATO does not have thousands of HQs... just like Georgia didn't. It makes no sense launching 100,000 unguided rockets at targets in war... there would not be 100,000 targets to aim for... and how are you going to find your targets?

    Any air platform that can find a target it makes more sense to put a small missile on that air platform and engage the target immediately than to pass the data to an artillery rocket 300km away and hope the target does not move away while the attack is launched.

    Not for mobile targets ,but for Static targets. ok? and they will be expensive
    if used in the hundreds or Thousands like Rocket Artillery are usually used.

    So Russia needs thousands of Chinese artillery rockets with a range of 300km so they can hit retreating Georgian armour...

    Yeah... excellent logic there.

    Terrorist took Palmyra away of Russia in a very humiliating defeat in just 24 hours , exactly using very fast mobile forces in jeeps.

    How the fuck would 300km range chinese missiles have made any difference... and stop being a drama queen, Russia never held anything in Syria... "Russia" is not there.

    The Russian airforce have been in several times unable to stop ISIS ,when they move very fast and dispersed , So those Iskanders will not be effective against fast small targets period. and a dispersed terrorist army is not weak..

    Of course... Chinese 300km range rockets will automatically track and kill the terrorists... automatically... I now understand why you think Russia needs super long range artillery rockets because they are super dooper magic fuckin things that leave schools and churches standing and just kill the bad guys.

    Because a column of suicide bombers in pickup trucks , charging at you is not weak. it can wipe an entire military base.

    Ahhh... kills some kids in the UK and now the super weapon of the 21st C. Perhaps what Russia really needs is suicide cruise missiles?

    Suicide bombers in armored pickup trucks are even more lethal than a cruise missile.

    Especially when fitted with fricken lasers on their heads right?

    because if they don't intercepted they don't miss and their explosion can be more powerful that Russia biggest dropped bomb in Syria . 1 Ton of TNT in a suicide truck will wipe an entire military airport or military base. the only thing weak are your arguments.

    Bullshit. One ton of HE wont even level a city block let alone an entire airfield. Would love to see a column of suicide bombers though... they would wipe themselves out when the first one is hit.

    Do you think if one ton of HE could wipe out an entire air base that the US military would fire 59 cruise missiles at one Syrian air field?

    100% of the military bases that the Syrian army have lost have always been to suicide bombers trucks , reinforced with armor to resist a kornet. Such tactics could be unstoppable
    if done in mass . they even using tanks for suicide attacks imagine that. Good luck trying to stop a fast moving tank in the desert with an iskander. is simply not designed for moving targets.

    Wow Vann you are really on to something here... imagine another plane of existence where someone comes up with a new technology... say an armoured vehicle that is designed to survive an ATGM hit... lets call it a tank... Armata perhaps, and give it armour and machine guns to protect itself and the ability to fire HE at the target so it can keep on fighting even after killing stuff with an explosion... and then make lots of them and use them together to overwhelm an enemy... hey this is fun... lets call a group of them a Division... a Tank Division...

    You can't armour a truck to a level where it is Kornet proof... Kornet will penetrate 1.2 metres of steel armour... that sort of weight armour and a truck would not move.

    Not true. Americans And CHINA have rocket artillery with 300km range, you are only making excuses. If they develop such system is not for fun they do it. simply you are wrong. they are very useful.

    Describe them. Put information here about them. Explain how they can actually be ACCURATE to 300km range and hit point moving targets the way you claim they can.

    super long range rocket artillery ~300km with GPS/Glonass could do the same job and infinitively more cheaper.

    You haven't mentioned how yet...

    An Iskander is a SPACE MISSILE ,and it have very advanced technology ,sensors ,decoys ,

    Iskander does not go any where near space.

    For it to manouver it needs to be inside the atmosphere.

    It manouvers to evade enemy air defences.

    Just more Bullocks.
    I already show you Chinese 300km artillery ,and americans also have similar ones. A scud is not artillery is a ballistic missile , their goals are different stop wasting my time. with weak arguments.

    Show me again... I missed it.

    Now you are insane. Why the fuck you will use Ebola on your own land?

    The fact that you are not too bright means I have to explain everything.

    5 billion dollars to weaponise ebola is an example of the economics of war... not a fucken suggestion on how to deal with terrorists at home or abroad.

    are you insane? I can't see why you are so short sighted and stubborn into thinking
    an Iskander can replace Rocket artillery it doesn't .

    You are the one claiming the Russians need a 300km range artillery system. I am telling you that they already have a 500km artillery rocket system called Iskander.

    If there is an area target 300km plus away that is forming up for an attack then a Tu-22M3 with 12 x 500kg cluster bombs each would be a much better and more cost effective way of dealing with the problem than ballistic rocket artillery... chinese or american.

    Rocket artillery major role is to PUSH back enemies ,to stop advancing armies. creating a wall of fire between you and them. if they hit enemy.. it will be great ,but it will still do the job if just push them back. Iskanders in the other hand is for destroying important fortifications,airports or static enemy concentrations very far away. but is not designed to stop advancing very spread armies that do not care about dying like ISIS.

    Field Marshal Haig... WWI is calling.

    Rocket artillery is great for rapid delivery of HE, but its pathetic accuracy means it is only useful in large volleys that are hard to hide. Reload times are also extensive and the number of reloads needed means either limited coverage or short operation time.

    Rocket artillery does not push anyone back and it kills everything... civilians and bad guys... if you are such a coward that you want the old marching artillery to lead your troops into battle then you are not the full quid.

    Why do you need 300km range... by the time your forces get there to occupy the ground left by all the dead bad guys new bad guys would have taken up their positions...


    But thats is not their major role. Rocket artillery is not designed for pin point precision attacks. but for Area Suppression. just get this at least right for once. that Russia have custom warheads for targeting armor is a different thing. and chinese 300km artillery have satellite navigation guidance. Rocket artillery is for stacking a lot of them ,firing them in mass attacks
    and cover a huge area to either push enemy farther ,stop and invasion or kill them. but is not
    for specific targeting attacks. sight.

    For area targets then accuracy is not important... density of fire is important and that is reduced with RANGE.

    Firing Smerch at 90km will lead to a much more lethal effect on target than any rocket system from 300km range.

    What sort of weapons do you think ISIS has that means Russia cannot let them within 300km of their ground forces?

    But to stop an invading army or cover a very large area ,you use Rocket artillery.

    Artillery rockets are no good for covering a very large area... concentrated fire is more effective than random fire.

    So ballistic missiles ,neither airforce Does not replace the need for very strong rocket artillery . and if your enemies have 300km range artillery they constantly move ,you will be very sorry for not having long range rocket artillery like that too.

    Iskander is FASTER than ballistic rockets, so if the problem is enemy artillery rockets with a 300km range then Iskander is the ideal solution.

    A rocket battery firing rockets with a range of 300km would be heavy and slow and the time between firing the first rocket and the last would give an ISKANDER battery plenty of time to find them and attack them.

    Having a rocket battery to return fire would be a total waste... the cost of a battery of rockets able to hit ground targets 300km away would be enormous... rather more than the Iskander battery in fact.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: M270 vs Smerch, ATCAMS vs Iskander

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:18 pm