What's new

MARA Single-use anti-tank rocket launcher

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
mara.jpg

The MARA was a significant technical achievement for Argentina, but its performance is decidedly weak and dated



Country of origin Argentina
Entered service 2005 (?) (see below)
Caliber 78 mm
Rocket weight 2 kg
Total weight 4.2 kg
Length (extended) 1 m
Length (collapsed) 0.7 m
Muzzle velocity 170 m/s
Sighting range 350 m (?)
Range of effective fire (against tanks) 200 m
Armor penetration 300 mm RHAe


The MARA is a disposable anti-tank rocket weapon designed by CITEFA, and is manufactured by the Fray Luis Beltrán munition factory. It holds the distinction of being designed, developed, funded, and produced entirely in Argentina.

The exact origins of the MARA are unclear from published literature, but the program was initiated in the mid-1990s, and the first operational test-firings of the weapon were conducted in 2005. The design requirements were that the weapon had to be made with simple and readily-available materials and technologies, incorporate R&D capabilities Argentina already had available, have a lower unit cost than comparable foreign weapons, have a high cost-effectiveness, and provide a personal anti-tank capability to every soldier in the field. It is implied by some sources that the MARA also entered service later in 2005, but given how long it took the program to proceed from approval to the first launch, achieving fully-operational status during the same year is highly implausible; it is more likely that the MARA achieved operational status between 2005 and 2010.

The MARA is extremely similar in appearance to the M72 LAW (see the entry on that weapon for more details), although its proportions differ slightly. Though unlike the LAW, the sling swivels on the MARA are both mounted on the underside of the outer tube, eliminating the need for the user to detach the sling from the muzzle cover when preparing to fire. Most MARAs are painted sand or olive drab in color, or in a drylands camouflage pattern, and have white stenciling and decals that include safety guides and the firing procedure.

The composition of the MARA is comparable to most other disposable anti-tank rocket weapons, with a reinforced fiberglass tube, steel muzzle and venturi caps and sights, and various minor components made from lightweight metal or plastic.

The sights used on the MARA consist of a similar front post and rear ladder to those used on the M72 LAW. The sighting range is unpublished, but probably similar to that of the LAW (350 meters), due to the similar performance of the MARA's rocket.

The 73 mm rocket used in the MARA is similar to the 66 mm rocket used in the M72 LAW. The warhead also penetrates the same 300 mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA) as the LAW rocket, despite the MARA's larger warhead. The rocket is similar in shape to that used in the LAW as well, and has 6 folding fins that spring into a radial cluster as the projectile leaves the tube. The projectile is reportedly quite accurate, and can consistently hit a one square-meter target at a distance of 200 m. A training round is also provided for the MARA, and an empty tube may be loaded with one, reportedly up to five times.

The operation of the MARA also appears to be the same as that of the M72 LAW, although the sling remains fastened to the weapon. According to the manufacturer, the MARA is operable inside a temperature range of -20°C to +50°C.

The MARA has never been launched in anger, and due to the relatively stable current political atmosphere in southern South America, it is unlikely to see combat use at any point in the foreseeable future. The only operator at present is Argentina, and due to the MARA's low performance (and the unusually large size and weight for a weapon of that level of performance), it is also unlikely to ever achieve any export sales. The market is inundated with many other weapons of the same class that have much greater capability, most of which probably cost less as well, due to being used surplus.

In short, the MARA seems to have been a significant misadventure. It was likely developed (as with many other weapons in the Developing World) simply as a "jobs program" to keep the ailing national arms industry funded, with competitive performance not being a consideration. While it certainly generated more business for CITEFA, it will be Argentina's citizens and military that pay the price in the long run, as Argentina is now acquiring the AT4 anti-tank weapon, and will likely have to do so in adequate numbers to replace the MARA. Thus, for an indigenous weapon that ultimately the price of two, Argentina will have one --- and it will be the foreign-designed AT4.



Similar weapons



M72 LAW: US 66 mm disposable anti-tank rocket launcher. This weapon was the first weapon of its type since the Panzerfaust of World War 2. This weapon strongly influenced the design of the MARA, but it was obsolete for more than two decades before the program that produced the MARA was initiated.

FGR-17 Viper: US 70 mm disposable anti-tank rocket launcher. The Viper was supposed to replace the M72 LAW, but due to poor project management the effort ended in disaster, and the US military ended up buying the M136 (a licensed US-made version of the Swedish AT4 disposable anti-tank recoilless gun) instead.

RPG-18 Mukha: Soviet 64 mm disposable anti-tank rocket launcher. Like the M72 LAW, the RPG-18 was not entirely satisfactory (and not powerful enough to reliably defeat many NATO tanks then in service), and was gradually supplanted by more powerful weapons. It has also infamously accused of being a knock-off of the M72 LAW.

M79 Osa: Yugoslav 64 mm disposable anti-tank rocket launcher. It very strongly resembles the RPG-18 in form and function, and may be a derivative.

RPG-22: Soviet 78 mm disposable anti-tank rocket launcher. This weapon was meant to replace the RPG-18, but became obsolete before it could even complete its development. The much larger (and decidedly more satisfactory) RPG-26 quickly superseded it, and the RPG-22 was only produced for about 10 years by the former Soviet Union. Interestingly, it has an identical bore to the MARA, but penetrates 350 mm of RHA instead of 300 mm.

SARPAC: French 68 mm disposable anti-tank rocket launcher. Like the RPG-18, the SARPAC arrived too late to be a viable product, and only a few nations bought it.

Miniman: Swedish 74 mm disposable anti-tank recoilless gun. This was another weapon in this class that entered service just as it became obsolete. Though like the RPG-22, it also penetrates 350 mm of RHA, opposed to 300 mm of the MARA.

Armbrust: German 67 mm disposable anti-tank rocket launcher. While not especially powerful compared to its contemporaries, the Armbrust still boasted a countermass and a muzzle/venturi sealing system that almost completely eliminate the smoke, flash, noise, and backblast from the launch.

Wasp 58: French 58 mm disposable multi-purpose rocket launcher. Unlike the above weapons, the Wasp 58 was *intended* to be smaller and weaker than its competitors, so that a lighter, cheaper, and more versatile weapon could be made. With over 450 000 sold to over a half-dozen nations, that formula proved astonishingly successful.

MARA
Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

mara_l1.jpg

MARA
Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

mara_l2.jpg

MARA
Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

mara_l3.jpg

MARA
Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

mara_l4.jpg

MARA
Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

mara_l5.jpg

MARA
Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

mara_l6.jpg

MARA
Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher

mara_l7.jpg



http://www.military-today.com/firearms/mara.htm
 
OMG!!! Did @Zarvan just create a thread about disposable rocket system? Surely, this must be his way of showing how much he hates them :D :D :D :D
Everyone is using them. Majority of modern and upcoming ATGM are all disposable and there are good reasons for it all. Something i request Zarvan to at least THINK about, try to understand what it could possibly be but he never replied. Bs ni pasand tu nahi pasand!! :D Not a kind of person who will think that, ok, i dont think this is a suitable system for this and that reason but then why the hell majority of world powers are shifting to this, what could they be thinking that i cannot figure out!! Nah!!
 
Everyone is using them. Majority of modern and upcoming ATGM are all disposable and there are good reasons for it all. Something i request Zarvan to at least THINK about, try to understand what it could possibly be but he never replied. Bs ni pasand tu nahi pasand!! :D Not a kind of person who will think that, ok, i dont think this is a suitable system for this and that reason but then why the hell majority of world powers are shifting to this, what could they be thinking that i cannot figure out!! Nah!!
Sir I have replied to you and I have still same opinion that if it has more rate of fire per minute than I would use this but if a non disposable has more than I would use that
 
Everyone is using them. Majority of modern and upcoming ATGM are all disposable and there are good reasons for it all. Something i request Zarvan to at least THINK about, try to understand what it could possibly be but he never replied. Bs ni pasand tu nahi pasand!! :D Not a kind of person who will think that, ok, i dont think this is a suitable system for this and that reason but then why the hell majority of world powers are shifting to this, what could they be thinking that i cannot figure out!! Nah!!

No they're not. old tech with no export success (similar to alcotan 100) or ones that are continuation of old lines. Successful Spanish exports like the C2 ARE coming out with REUSABLE ONES. Successful ones (and the next generation ones) from Israel, China, Germany etc are all reusable. This isn't even getting into the questionable contractual situation that Pakistan has been put into by a general PAR 5 alluded to in his postings.
 
Sir I have replied to you and I have still same opinion that if it has more rate of fire per minute than I would use this but if a non disposable has more than I would use that
THIS was not the question. The question was have you though that WHY are all those countries acting stupidly and investing in system that you THINK is useless because of its rate of fire. WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE THE REASON FOR THEM CHOOSING IT. Have you though about that? Or are you saying that you know things that THEY don't know and all of them made a bad choice and you are right? You never though about that and never told answered this question.

Here,
ENot a kind of person who will think that, ok, i dont think this is a suitable system for this and that reason but then why the hell majority of world powers are shifting to this, what could they be thinking that i cannot figure out!! Nah!!
See?
:)

No they're not. old tech with no export success (similar to alcotan 100) or ones that are continuation of old lines. Successful Spanish exports like the C2 ARE coming out with REUSABLE ONES. Successful ones (and the next generation ones) from Israel, China, Germany etc are all reusable. This isn't even getting into the questionable contractual situation that Pakistan has been put into by a general PAR 5 alluded to in his postings.
:)
AT4 by SAAB is one of the most successful ATGM. It is single shot/disposable system in use with some THREE DOZEN countries
Urban Assault Weapon in a next generation anti-tank program pursued by the super power America, a disposable system.
APILAS is French, its disposable and its ATGM. IN use with some 12 countries with OVER a hundred THOUSAND produced to date. Modern system in use with France, Italy, Korea and Saudia.
MATADOR by Israel is also a disposable/single shot ATGM introduced in 2000. A JV with Singapore the product have an impressive users list with German and United Kingdom on the list
Panzerfaust-3 is a modern disposable anti-tank weapon from Germany. Again a long list of users with countries Italy, Belgium, Japan and Korea on it.
Javeline (the same we ALL know about) is also have a single shot launch tube. :)
MBT LAW, a joint effort of the England and Sweden is a modern anti-tank guided missile. Incidentally, it is a disposable system as well.

THE LIST IS LONG!! You can find some more names on that ALTOCAN thread here. :)

PLUS, note that these are no old systems, most of them were introduced in last decade or two, there are similar disposable systems running as work in progress and are still under DEVELOPMENT for the future.

Kindly please note that the disposable systems offer its own advantages and that is the reason they are in use with DOZENS of countries with MILLIONS of systems produced so far. MILLIONS! These advantages are what i invited our friend @Zarvan to THINK about and try to figure out. All these world power are not fools. Lot is being invested into these systems and that is due to some advantages they offer. Yes reusable weapons are also coming out but the argument was never about reusable ones being USELESS :P I never said that!
 
THIS was not the question. The question was have you though that WHY are all those countries acting stupidly and investing in system that you THINK is useless because of its rate of fire. WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE THE REASON FOR THEM CHOOSING IT. Have you though about that? Or are you saying that you know things that THEY don't know and all of them made a bad choice and you are right? You never though about that and never told answered this question.

Here,

See?
:)


:)
AT4 by SAAB is one of the most successful ATGM. It is single shot/disposable system in use with some THREE DOZEN countries
Urban Assault Weapon in a next generation anti-tank program pursued by the super power America, a disposable system.
APILAS is French, its disposable and its ATGM. IN use with some 12 countries with OVER a hundred THOUSAND produced to date. Modern system in use with France, Italy, Korea and Saudia.
MATADOR by Israel is also a disposable/single shot ATGM introduced in 2000. A JV with Singapore the product have an impressive users list with German and United Kingdom on the list
Panzerfaust-3 is a modern disposable anti-tank weapon from Germany. Again a long list of users with countries Italy, Belgium, Japan and Korea on it.
Javeline (the same we ALL know about) is also have a single shot launch tube. :)
MBT LAW, a joint effort of the England and Sweden is a modern anti-tank guided missile. Incidentally, it is a disposable system as well.

THE LIST IS LONG!! You can find some more names on that ALTOCAN thread here. :)

PLUS, note that these are no old systems, most of them were introduced in last decade or two, there are similar disposable systems running as work in progress and are still under DEVELOPMENT for the future.

Kindly please note that the disposable systems offer its own advantages and that is the reason they are in use with DOZENS of countries with MILLIONS of systems produced so far. MILLIONS! These advantages are what i invited our friend @Zarvan to THINK about and try to figure out. All these world power are not fools. Lot is being invested into these systems and that is due to some advantages they offer. Yes reusable weapons are also coming out but the argument was never about reusable ones being USELESS :P I never said that!

You give me AT4, I give you the Carl Gustav. The reason AT4s have large numbers of them being sold is because they're single-shot. To get the right comparison you'd have to count the total number of WARHEADS sold of Carl Gustav.

Panzerfaust is also reusable (up to 10 shots) unless the version is made out of fibre-glass. The other ones you mentioned are secondary to their countries' ATMs in that the primary missile used by them is the SPIKE (the best atgm out there by a lot of peoples' opinion); reusable. Chinese Red Dragon, reusable. Pakistan has no modern analogue.

The countries mentioned also are a lot more advanced than Pakistan when being able to build/replace these missiles. Single-shot pieces are made of fibre-glass and not built to withstand more than a shot; that's doable when you have the ability to replace them either due to your industrial capability or $. Pakistan has neither. The crap contract Pakistan signed onto gives them neither the ability to address these issues.
 
The countries mentioned also are a lot more advanced than Pakistan when being able to build/replace these missiles. Single-shot pieces are made of fibre-glass and not built to withstand more than a shot; that's doable when you have the ability to replace them either due to your industrial capability or $. Pakistan has neither. The crap contract Pakistan signed onto gives them neither the ability to address these issues.

It seems you are talking in terms of the Pakistani contract while i am telling you about what the world is doing!!
:)

I am not defending Pakistan's decision to procure ALTOCAN. All i am telling you people here is that the single shot are not only in common use but some of the world powers and actually investing MILLIONS on these systems, procurement, development and EVEN research! Meaning, they are here to stay, suggesting, there must be some positives! Now we both know about them. Whether the positives stand true for Pakistan as well is a different story and i personally do not think it does! However, i do not understand how someone can call a weapons system "crap" and "absolutely useless" in general only because it is not so suitable for our own needs! How can the fact be ignored that the similar type of weapon are in use by over 60 countries, world powers included and MILLIONS of systems have been produced and new weapons are under development as well.



Look at the bigger picture. THe disagreement was NOT about Pakistan's procurement but simply the weapon type!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom