Noprobably the Hayats.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Noprobably the Hayats.
How much info we need to spoon feed? and mark my words, THEY wont even kisten to all this. Isnt this pretty obvious? all those countries investing millions of dollars on making, improving and procuring such weapons must have found some advantage on it. Those 12 odd systems i named cant be all crap, thos 50 odd countries are surely bot being run by dikheads. Why cant our guys think beyond what they have "assumed"? Where is the brain storming and being open to new ideas? THIS needs to change. I think the most imp purpose this forum serves is give us common people an opportunity to learn, not being interested in that is a waste of EVERYONE's time. That us why i have been asking all this in form of question, hoping against hipe that the guys might listen, stop for a moment and think about possibilities!! Par nai, bs hm na aik baat soch le tu wohi harf-e-akhir ho gai!!!For those who are asking what is it single fired weapon and why not have a reusable tube like Carl Gustaf, below is quoted from the link which may give you an idea:
"
Because it’s cheap and lightweight and we rarely need to use them more than once.
The AT4 costs $1500. It weighs about 15 pounds.
The M3 Carl Gustaf, another recoilless rifle in the US arsenal that is reusable costs $25,000 just for the tube and $500–3,000 per shell. The tube alone weighs 19 pounds and obviously requires a team/operator to carry more than one round to benefit from being reusable. Because of the weight, it’s most effectively used by a team (which is how it’s almost always deployed).
The reusability and versatility of systems like the M3 or the RPG7 simply can’t justify the weight/cost/inconvenience of employing them the same way we employ the AT4. AT4s are dirt cheap and can be easily slung over the shoulder to be used by anyone. Even the cheapest/most compact reusable systems typically don’t lend themselves to individual use like that, at least not ideally. "
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-U-S-military-use-single-use-rocket-launchers
Read the discussion, quiet informative.
The Alcotan 100 is basically a rocket that can fire itself. So instead of having a dedicated launcher for your anti-tank rockets, the rockets can be picked up and fired independently.
How much info we need to spoon feed? and mark my words, THEY wont even kisten to all this. Isnt this pretty obvious? all those countries investing millions of dollars on making, improving and procuring such weapons must have found some advantage on it. Those 12 odd systems i named cant be all crap, thos 50 odd countries are surely bot being run by dikheads. Why cant our guys think beyond what they have "assumed"? Where is the brain storming and being open to new ideas? THIS needs to change. I think the most imp purpose this forum serves is give us common people an opportunity to learn, not being interested in that is a waste of EVERYONE's time. That us why i have been asking all this in form of question, hoping against hipe that the guys might listen, stop for a moment and think about possibilities!! Par nai, bs hm na aik baat soch le tu wohi harf-e-akhir ho gai!!!
So you want to say in time of war when thousands of enemy Tanks and IFV and other machinery and soldiers will be moving forward. Our soldiers will need to only one Aloctan or similar weapon to fire and all of them would vanish. I didn't new nuclear armed NASR has been re named Alocatn 100.How much info we need to spoon feed? and mark my words, THEY wont even kisten to all this. Isnt this pretty obvious? all those countries investing millions of dollars on making, improving and procuring such weapons must have found some advantage on it. Those 12 odd systems i named cant be all crap, thos 50 odd countries are surely bot being run by dikheads. Why cant our guys think beyond what they have "assumed"? Where is the brain storming and being open to new ideas? THIS needs to change. I think the most imp purpose this forum serves is give us common people an opportunity to learn, not being interested in that is a waste of EVERYONE's time. That us why i have been asking all this in form of question, hoping against hipe that the guys might listen, stop for a moment and think about possibilities!! Par nai, bs hm na aik baat soch le tu wohi harf-e-akhir ho gai!!!
Let's say the Army has the Carl Gustaf instead, ok, what happens when the rounds/rockets run out?So you want to say in time of war when thousands of enemy Tanks and IFV and other machinery and soldiers will be moving forward. Our soldiers will need to only one Aloctan or similar weapon to fire and all of them would vanish. I didn't new nuclear armed NASR has been re named Alocatn 100.
Even Assault Rifle bullets can run out. But point is in Carl Gaustav or in case of RPG 7 you can fire round relatively at faster rate than disposable weapon. Also you can carry more Rockets as compared to a disposable weapon. Because in Disposable weapon you are carrying its huge tube also.Let's say the Army has the Carl Gustaf instead, ok, what happens when the rounds/rockets run out?
For that we have Baktar Shikan and TOW
The Carl Gustaf has a firing rate of 6 rounds per minute - that is one round per 10 seconds. Why can't a well-trained rocket'eer drop an empty Alcotan (or AT4, MM60, etc) shell and fire a new one in that time?Even Assault Rifle bullets can run out. But point is in Carl Gaustav or in case of RPG 7 you can fire round relatively at faster rate than disposable weapon. Also you can carry more Rockets as compared to a disposable weapon. Because in Disposable weapon you are carrying its huge tube also.
Because in case of Carl Gaustav you don't have to throw away that massive launcher but in case of Alotcan 100 you have to first disassemble it separate that massive pipe than put a new one and than fire it takes time I am more than sure it would take at least 20 secondsThe Carl Gustaf has a firing rate of 6 rounds per minute - that is one round per 10 seconds. Why can't a well-trained rocket'eer drop an empty Alcotan (or AT4, MM60, etc) shell and fire a new one in that time?
As for "huge tube" - the length of the Alcotan-100 is 1.15 m and the length of the Carl Gustaf is 1.1 m. The size difference between the two is 4 cm. That's huge?
Add Milan 2 to the list.
That's not how the Alcotan 100 works. It's a single-shot system. This means that the munition (i.e. rocket + launcher) is literally picked up, connected to its FCS (takes 4 seconds) and fired. Once fired, the user ejects the used munition, takes the next munition (4 sec link to the FCS), and fires it. There's no disassembling the "massive pipe" (which is 4 cm longer than the Carl Gustaf) or anything of that nature.Because in case of Carl Gaustav you don't have to throw away that massive launcher but in case of Alotcan 100 you have to first disassemble it separate that massive pipe than put a new one and than fire it takes time I am more than sure it would take at least 20 seconds
Because in case of Carl Gaustav you don't have to throw away that massive launcher but in case of Alotcan 100 you have to first disassemble it separate that massive pipe than put a new one and than fire it takes time I am more than sure it would take at least 20 seconds
That's not how the Alcotan 100 works. It's a single-shot system. This means that the munition (i.e. rocket + launcher) is literally picked up, connected to its FCS (takes 4 seconds) and fired. Once fired, the user ejects the used munition, takes the next munition (4 sec link to the FCS), and fires it. There's no disassembling the "massive pipe" (which is 4 cm longer than the Carl Gustaf) or anything of that nature.
There is/was one more I believe some German missile (forgetting the name), but not sure if that is still in service or not.