Army orders ALCOTAN Shoulder Fired Anti Tank Weapon System

[Zarvan]

RPG's have a shorter range and lack aiming device (they are visually aimed)



Not so in this case. At least not to that extent. Remember Aiming device is bought once, rockets over an dover again, just like printers come free but their toners cost a fortune.



This looks like captured indian stuff



Why? because your source didn't know about it and you were not the first one to Profess its purchase on PDF?
How is this an out dated system?
How is RPG better than this system? Care to share your learned comparison with us?

Dude I knew about Pakistani Army delegation visiting spain a year ago. But I didn't knew they have already placed orders. I knew it was tested but when orders were placed I didn't knew that. I don't like this because of this disposable crap which I came to know about yesterday. This disposable crap thing makes it totally useless. We should have a system which launcher we can use for years not only for one time and than we have to dispose it.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm not sure how you got to the sight and rocket correlation.

The Alcotan's integrated targeting system (VOSEL M2) is like an optional sight, it's attachable and removable with each Alcotan munition (i.e. rocket + launcher). Once the munition is used, it is discarded and the same sight (VOSEL M2) is removed and used with the next rocket. The sight is an independent entity; if the Army chose the Saab Carl Gustaf M4 (assuming Sweden is willing it), it would need a sight for that too.

Sight and rocket correlation:

Assume, for the sake of argument, missile's cost is x and sight's cost is 10x. Then,

158 * 10x + 1413 * x = 24.755 M

=> x = 8270.96 = cost of 1 missile
10 x = 82709.65 = cost of 1 sight.

If you say the missile is cheaper than that, then the cost of the sight only increases. You can buy as many missiles as you want, but in the end, you would need to buy the sights as well for all infantry units. But the thing is, you do not spread around such expensive equipment to grunts in trenches across the army.

Also, for all that money, you are getting something that is incapable of acquiring a target lock. It is an unguided missile. At the minimal, the missile should have heat seeker, and the sight should have aA laser designator. I am not very good with what other options are out there, but surely, there is some shoulder fired system out there that:

1. Is day/night all weather capable.
2. Acquires an initial lock on the target using heat signature or laser designator.
3. Passes the information to fire and forget missile on launch.

Now, all this advanced locking stuff comes with a downside that it can be jammed. Hence, the RPG will never get old. All you need to do is put a good night vision sight on an RPG system and make it available in large numbers throughout the troops. The only benefit which this very expensive sight is giving is the computation of future location. But the best predictor of future location is the human brain with target practice. And so, RPG specialists should be raised who go through rigorous training just like snipers receive specialist training.

Now, if the cost of the sight itself can come down to, let's say, $4000/-, it becomes much more viable.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Sight and rocket correlation:

Assume, for the sake of argument, missile's cost is x and sight's cost is 10x. Then,

158 * 10x + 1413 * x = 24.755 M

=> x = 8270.96 = cost of 1 missile
10 x = 82709.65 = cost of 1 sight.

If you say the missile is cheaper than that, then the cost of the sight only increases. You can buy as many missiles as you want, but in the end, you would need to buy the sights as well for all infantry units. But the thing is, you do not spread around such expensive equipment to grunts in trenches across the army.

Also, for all that money, you are getting something that is incapable of acquiring a target lock. It is an unguided missile. At the minimal, the missile should have heat seeker, and the sight should have aA laser designator. I am not very good with what other options are out there, but surely, there is some shoulder fired system out there that:

1. Is day/night all weather capable.
2. Acquires an initial lock on the target using heat signature or laser designator.
3. Passes the information to fire and forget missile on launch.

Now, all this advanced locking stuff comes with a downside that it can be jammed. Hence, the RPG will never get old. All you need to do is put a good night vision sight on an RPG system and make it available in large numbers throughout the troops. The only benefit which this very expensive sight is giving is the computation of future location. But the best predictor of future location is the human brain with target practice. And so, RPG specialists should be raised who go through rigorous training just like snipers receive specialist training.

Now, if the cost of the sight itself can come down to, let's say, $4000/-, it becomes much more viable.

I see. I'm not sure if it's technically necessary for the Alcotan-100 munition to require the sight. There is an interface, but if the fire control system is in the sight, then the Army can ask to swap the sight for a basic fire control trigger or even a very simple sight and cheap sight system.

As for requiring a fire-and-forget missile with automated target lock - you're asking for a modern ATGM. The issue with those is that these are very expensive and weigh a lot for foot soldiers (for whom the Alcotan was intended). That said, you could fit a seeker and guidance system to these rockets, but you run the risk of spiking the cost and adding unnecessary weight. The Alcotan-100 et. al were not designed to take down agile targets at long-range, but vehicles at <600 m and bunkers at <1,000 m.

 

[CriticalThought]

I see. I'm not sure if it's technically necessary for the Alcotan-100 munition to require the sight. There is an interface, but if the fire control system is in the sight, then the Army can ask to swap the sight for a basic fire control trigger or even a very simple sight and cheap sight system.

As for requiring a fire-and-forget missile with automated target lock - you're asking for a modern ATGM. The issue with those is that these are very expensive and weigh a lot for foot soldiers (for whom the Alcotan was intended). That said, you could fit a seeker and guidance system to these rockets, but you run the risk of spiking the cost and adding unnecessary weight. The Alcotan-100 et. al were not designed to take down agile targets at long-range, but vehicles at <600 m and bunkers at <1,000 m.

How about adding night vision sights to RPGs? At their low cost, a two man team can cycle through 5-6 launchers where the firer keeps picking up new launchers and the loader keeps reloading previous ones. Simple and effective.

Or, how about something like the Javelin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

It's pricey, yet very very effective. I would want Pakistan to either develop this locally, or get something similar for Turkey/China etc.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

How about adding night vision sights to RPGs? At their low cost, a two man team can cycle through 5-6 launchers where the firer keeps picking up new launchers and the loader keeps reloading previous ones. Simple and effective.

Or, how about something like the Javelin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

It's pricey, yet very very effective. I would want Pakistan to either develop this locally, or get something similar for Turkey/China etc.

I'm still trying to understand the Alcotan-100. It'd be odd to develop this thing if there are ways to transform RPGs into relatively accurate weapons (at 500 m where the accuracy falls to 5%).

To me it seems that the Alcotan-100 is simply that - i.e. a 100 mm RPG designed from the ground-up to be accurate at 600 m and 1000 m for vehicles and bunkers, respectively.

I don't think it's just an issue of adding a sight, but having a rocket that closely works with its guidance unit to provide a relatively capable and affordable mid-range solution. The affordability stems from it being substantially cheaper than ATGMs (which average $250,000+ vs. ~$10,000 of the Alcotan rocket), but still more accurate than an RPG. There are a whole slew of targets that don't require ATGMs or cannot be reached by ATGMs (e.g. too heavy to carry in some built up urban and natural environments).

Even the Javelin is still a markedly more expensive system. Yes, the Alcotan-100's sight is a costly system - fair - but you are not equipping every single soldier with rocket ordnance. Be it the Javelin or Alcotan, the system is in the hands of a specific few in the battlefield who are responsible for removing major obstacles or vehicles. If you have a 'rocket-eer', you're paying $50,000 for one sight and $10,000 for accurate (albeit unguided) rockets. Yes, an RPG is exponentially cheaper, but it's also not as effective at 500 m. The ATGM is much better, but it's also much heavier and more expensive by multitudes.

 

[Thorough Pro]

So you don't like it because it is disposable and you don't understand the (disposable) concept despite so many members explaining it to you. Let me explain it to you.

Reusable:
Missile launching tube and Fire Control Unit (FCU) is one single unit. Missile is separate unit. Insert the missile in the tube. Fire. Insert the second missile, fire. so on so forth.

Disposable:
Fire Control Unit (FCU) is one unit. Missile already fitted in launching tube (Ammo Tube) is a separate unit. Attach the tube to FCU, fire. detach the tube and throw it away. Attach the second tube to the FCU, Fire. Detach the tube and throw it away. so on and so forth.

Conclusion: Missile launching tube (Ammo Tube) is for single use only, thus disposable.

FCU (Firing control unit)

Ammo Tube (Tube)

Attachment point

FCU attached to Tube

Types of munitions (types of ammo tubes)

Dude I knew about Pakistani Army delegation visiting spain a year ago. But I didn't knew they have already placed orders. I knew it was tested but when orders were placed I didn't knew that. I don't like this because of this disposable crap which I came to know about yesterday. This disposable crap thing makes it totally useless. We should have a system which launcher we can use for years not only for one time and than we have to dispose it.

 

[Zarvan]

So you don't like it because it is disposable and you don't understand the (disposable) concept despite so many members explaining it to you. Let me explain it to you.

Reusable:
Missile launching tube and Fire Control Unit (FCU) is one single unit. Missile is separate unit. Insert the missile in the tube. Fire. Insert the second missile, fire. so on so forth.

Disposable:
Fire Control Unit (FCU) is one unit. Missile already fitted in launching tube (Ammo Tube) is a separate unit. Attach the tube to FCU, fire. detach the tube and throw it away. Attach the second tube to the FCU, Fire. Detach the tube and throw it away. so on and so forth.

Conclusion: Missile launching tube (Ammo Tube) is for single use only, thus disposable.

FCU (Firing control unit)

Ammo Tube (Tube)

Attachment point

FCU attached to Tube

Types of munitions (types of ammo tubes)

I knew exactly what it meant and still not worth it. It would be way to expensive and also hard for a single soldier to carry so many tubes and also ammunition of it. We need something like Carl Gustav which can fire several kind of ammunition and no part of launcher has to be changed only after one fire. If SAAB doesn't agree to sell us than we need to develop something with either China or Ukraine or Turkey.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Reusable Type C90

Tube and FCU is one integrated unit

C90 Launcher(Right), projectile (Left), carrier on back of left soldier

Carrier (in disposable type you don't need a separate carrier, launching tube doubles as carrier and storage)

Loading (in reusable type you need an assistant to load the projectile) not in disposable

C90 munitions types

I hope your confusion is resolved now.

No you din't get it you are dumb as duck.

I knew exactly what it meant and still not worth it. It would be way to expensive and also hard for a single soldier to carry so many tubes and also ammunition of it. We need something like Carl Gustav which can fire several kind of ammunition and no part of launcher has to be changed only after one fire. If SAAB doesn't agree to sell us than we need to develop something with either China or Ukraine or Turkey.

 

[Zarvan]

Reusable Type C90

Tube and FCU is one integrated unit

C90 Launcher(Right), projectile (Left), carrier on back of left soldier

Carrier (in disposable type you don't need a separate carrier, launching tube doubles as carrier and storage)

Loading (in reusable type you need an assistant to load the projectile) not in disposable

C90 munitions types

I hope your confusion is resolved now.

No you din't get it you are dumb as duck.

I got it on first time I knew than both tube and ammunition has to be changed in Alcotan 100 only that box kind of thing remains same and that is why I am saying we should not go for it. If the reusable C-90 is latest version than either go for that or build a new one with China or Ukraine or Turkey and also go for RPG-32. I knew exactly from first post when Arsalan described it what it is that is why I am against it. Cost of Missile is already high and with this we would have to change the tube also that is pretty dam high cost.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm still trying to understand the Alcotan-100. It'd be odd to develop this thing if there are ways to transform RPGs into relatively accurate weapons (at 500 m where the accuracy falls to 5%).

To me it seems that the Alcotan-100 is simply that - i.e. a 100 mm RPG designed from the ground-up to be accurate at 600 m and 1000 m for vehicles and bunkers, respectively.

I don't think it's just an issue of adding a sight, but having a rocket that closely works with its guidance unit to provide a relatively capable and affordable mid-range solution. The affordability stems from it being substantially cheaper than ATGMs (which average $250,000+ vs. ~$10,000 of the Alcotan rocket), but still more accurate than an RPG. There are a whole slew of targets that don't require ATGMs or cannot be reached by ATGMs (e.g. too heavy to carry in some built up urban and natural environments).

Even the Javelin is still a markedly more expensive system. Yes, the Alcotan-100's sight is a costly system - fair - but you are not equipping every single soldier with rocket ordnance. Be it the Javelin or Alcotan, the system is in the hands of a specific few in the battlefield who are responsible for removing major obstacles or vehicles. If you have a 'rocket-eer', you're paying $50,000 for one sight and $10,000 for accurate (albeit unguided) rockets. Yes, an RPG is exponentially cheaper, but it's also not as effective at 500 m. The ATGM is much better, but it's also much heavier and more expensive by multitudes.

So it's the middle point between cheap rockets and very accurate and expensive ATGMs. Nice.

Now that you mention it, yes, we need to consider things like quickly carrying up a set of stairs or even up a mountain. At 10 kg, it will still be challenge.

There is one last reservation. I dislike the idea of a cache of missiles sitting unused because the firing unit was not available. That's why it's better to have the FCU with each missile.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

So it's the middle point between cheap rockets and very accurate and expensive ATGMs. Nice.

Now that you mention it, yes, we need to consider things like quickly carrying up a set of stairs or even up a mountain. At 10 kg, it will still be challenge.

There is one last reservation. I dislike the idea of a cache of missiles sitting unused because the firing unit was not available. That's why it's better to have the FCU with each missile.

I think it's an inconsequential reason. If soldiers can't be trained to keep their fire control units with them, then why would you trust them with the task? In fact, in the off situation where you have to abandon your rockets (or lose them to an ambush), busting or losing the fire control unit could prevent the enemy from using those rockets. It might also prevent malicious actors from readily framing you by using those rockets.

As for taking it up a mountain. 10 kg is a dream for donkeys

 

[Hell hound]

How about adding night vision sights to RPGs? At their low cost, a two man team can cycle through 5-6 launchers where the firer keeps picking up new launchers and the loader keeps reloading previous ones. Simple and effective.

Or, how about something like the Javelin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

It's pricey, yet very very effective. I would want Pakistan to either develop this locally, or get something similar for Turkey/China etc.

fun fact javelin is also a disposable system

 

[Zarvan]

fun fact javelin is also a disposable system

You gotta be kidding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thorough Pro]

For the umpteenth time C-90 is obsolete
M2 that PA acquired are the later version and in your excitement to show your all knowing attitude you didn't even notice the range, warhead size, and the penetration.

I am out, don't tell me you knew everything.

I got it on first time I knew than both tube and ammunition has to be changed in Alcotan 100 only that box kind of thing remains same and that is why I am saying we should not go for it. If the reusable C-90 is latest version than either go for that or build a new one with China or Ukraine or Turkey and also go for RPG-32. I knew exactly from first post when Arsalan described it what it is that is why I am against it. Cost of Missile is already high and with this we would have to change the tube also that is pretty dam high cost.

for your info all modern portable anti tank are now in disposable tubes because of ease in storage, logistics and carrying, but you keep loving your RPG's of 1847

You gotta be kidding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PAR 5]

The firing unit VOSEL is for aiming and acquiring the target. It gets interfaced with the rocket housed in a environmentally sealed resin based disposable tube. A soldier will normally carry One VOSEL unit and 2-3 rockets sealed in the resin tube. Once the rocket is fired the resin tube becomes useless and disposable and is thrown away. The reason this system was purchased on the fast track is because someone can make tons of money on continually buying the sealed rocket tube from INSTALAZA forever. No ToT has been signed for this purchase with any local manufacturer. Like I said, corruption in this deal is very evident and the serving Major General who was superseded will end up with hefty commissions through the local company. The General's retirement financial plan is secured without check. The said project has been funded under SADA funds (total allocated funds around US$25 million) and procurement of the system will be done every year based on the availability of funds. Initial purchase is of around US$3 million this year. Its a very bad & very expensive deal for the Army