T-129 Atak & Turkish Attack Helicopter Programs

[Audio]

You're not following. Tanks lost their importance in conventional warfare. They aren't the center of the battle now.

Facepalm. Tanks did not loose their importance in conventional warfare. Only in assymetric warfare. I present the argument of battle of Fallujah where Abrams was extensively used in an infantry support role. I wonder why?
Also, Canadian experience in Afganistan. Canada put out of service all it's Leo's 1 and thought Stryker brigades are the way for the future. When they saw the the reality on the ground they hastily ordered Leo's 2. 2A4 and 2A6. From 2 different suppliers, which you can take as a sense of urgency to get tanks to the battlefield.

Now, this is not saying tanks are king. In an environment where the enemy has air superiority they are more or less targets, but when parity is achieved and anti tank helicopters have to operate with restraint and not just fly all over a tank is an awesome addition to the infantry. Ask any infantryman.
in addition, with the advent of active protection their survivability will increase. Merkava already has it in service, Germans were testing as far back as 2006/7 iirc.

http://defense-update.com/products/a/awiss.htm

http://defense-update.com/products/t/trophy_merkava.htm

Your premise that tanks are obsolete can be immediately disqualified just by looking at tank projects around the world. I see numerous Chinese projects, a Russian new tank, Leo 2A7, Abrams A3 in 2017, Turkey as well.....

 

[Quasar]

Facepalm. Tanks did not loose their importance in conventional warfare. Only in assymetric warfare. Canadian experience in Afganistan. Canada put out of service all it's Leo's 1 and thought Stryker brigades are the way for the future. When they saw the the reality on the ground they hastily ordered Leo's 2. 2A4 and 2A6. From 2 different suppliers, which you can take as a sense of urgency to get tanks to the battlefield.

......................................

 

[madmusti]

Facepalm. Tanks did not loose their importance in conventional warfare. Only in assymetric warfare. I present the argument of battle of Fallujah where Abrams was extensively used in an infantry support role. I wonder why?
Also, Canadian experience in Afganistan. Canada put out of service all it's Leo's 1 and thought Stryker brigades are the way for the future. When they saw the the reality on the ground they hastily ordered Leo's 2. 2A4 and 2A6. From 2 different suppliers, which you can take as a sense of urgency to get tanks to the battlefield.

Now, this is not saying tanks are king. In an environment where the enemy has air superiority they are more or less targets, but when parity is achieved and anti tank helicopters have to operate with restraint and not just fly all over a tank is an awesome addition to the infantry. Ask any infantryman.
in addition, with the advent of active protection their survivability will increase. Merkava already has it in service, Germans were testing as far back as 2006/7 iirc.

AWiSS - Active Protection System Suite - APS

Trophy Completes Integration to Retrofit the Merkava Mk4 Main Battle Tank

Your premise that tanks are obsolete can be immediately disqualified just by looking at tank projects around the world. I see numerous Chinese projects, a Russian new tank, Leo 2A7, Abrams A3 in 2017, Turkey as well.....

Yeah On Conventional ,but that was During WWII and Cold War Times.

Now You are in Afghanistan & Takistan and using Tanks against 2 Al-Qaida Soldiers who your State has before Trained.

And then **** happens :

 

[Audio]

......................................

In October 2003, Canada was set to buy the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun System to replace its Leopard C2 tanks. By 2007, however, the lessons of war took Canada down a very different path – one that led them to renew the very tank fleet they were once intent on scrapping, while backing away from the wheeled vehicles that were once the cornerstone of the Canadian Army’s transformation plan. This updated article includes a full chronology for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks, adds information concerning DND’s exact plans and breakdowns for their new fleet, and discusses front-line experiences in Afghanistan.

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Okay for starters I consider Attack Helicopters of today as the cavalry of the old era. Just like how you have Heavy Cavalry and Light Cavalry you have Heavy and Light choppers. And both have their roles.

The heavy Cavalry is great for charging against a group of enemies while the light cavalry is good against chasing down fleeing enemies and for hit and run tactics.

Considering which is the best depends on the role you wish to employ them at. As for Turkey clearly a Light Chopper is the best option considering it is actively fighting against an irregular asymmetric enemy in a "Mountainous" terrain. Our needs are against a conventional enemy in "Desert" terrain. Although the need to fight an asymmetric enemy in mountainous terrain have presented itself recently. However considering we only had Heavy Choppers in the form of the AH64 which proved itself without a doubt as a game changer earning it a nickname of the "Black She-Devil" between the Houthi ranks which became sort of the unofficial name for it in our military taking down entire training camps, hideouts and tunnels in a single sortie, as well as providing CAS for troops which prompted our request for more of them.



And just take a deep breath close your eyes and imagine what a fleet of 94 Apaches can do in a single sortie.... 153 counting all GCC Apaches.

Bravo, I was trying to say this but you made it much clearer.

Oh and regarding it being an easy target for RPGs, You clearly haven't clue of what really is the Apache's armor made of. You can fire 5 RPGs at it and it won't even make a dent. Okay maybe a dent but not much really.

Of course this is not true, RPGs are made to penetrate heavy Armour +300 mm, AH-64 would be lucky if survived 23 mm bullets with it's light Armour. It's almost impossible for the RPG to hit a helicopter, for guidance, speed, range and altitude factors. Even the Manpads which are made to target air-crafts can't be guaranteed to directly hit them, and that's why their warheads are "blast fragmentation". LegionnairE apparently had no clue of what he was talking about, according to him, Oserio tank is better than Abrams M1A2 and the latter is garbage, T-129 ATAK is much more advanced than AH-64...

 

[LegionnairE]

Thats hardly official, could have been a mistake from someone doing an internship at PR.

Man you're such a buzzkill It's not like Azerbaijan to buy in so big numbers but It was about time they learn how to make procurement the right way. Still hoping if it's true.

Now, this is not saying tanks are king. In an environment where the enemy has air superiority they are more or less targets

Exactly, we are saying the same things. During WWII and cold war the whole warfare was based on tanks, it changed now tanks are pretty much in a support role. That's what i meant by "lost their importance"

LegionnairE apparently had no clue of what he was talking about, according to him, Oserio tank is better than Abrams M1A2

Correct, don't just fall in fancy looks. Abrams' fuel consumption, maintenance costs and heat emission are through the roof. It's one of weirdest tanks with it's turbine engine. Saudis chose the Osorio, not me. It came out as the winner of the tender but you know the rest. Enough derailing the thread.

T-129 ATAK is much more advanced than AH-64...

Much more updated to the threats of the modern battlefield, yes.

 

[Audio]

Exactly, we are saying the same things. During WWII and cold war the whole warfare was based on tanks, it changed now tanks are pretty much in a support role. That's what i meant by "lost their importance"

Just because the recent conflicts have been against insurgents with no real army structure (no air support,no artillery just light mortars) it does not mean every conflict in the future will be the same. And even against insurgents there were occasions were tanks were useful.

State actors everywhere are getting more equipped and the scramble for resources just started. It would be unwise (to put it mildly) to be planning for a fight against one type of threat only.

 

[LegionnairE]

State actors everywhere are getting more equipped and the scramble for resources just started. It would be unwise (to put it mildly) to be planning for a fight against one type of threat only.

You see, great minds think alike. This is exactly what i'm saying since the beginning of the debate.

 

[Audio]

You see, great minds think alike. This is exactly what i'm saying since the beginning of the debate.

All i read was Apache outdated, tanks gone, T-129 FTW......

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Man you're such a buzzkill It's not like Azerbaijan to buy in so big numbers but It was about time they learn how to make procurement the right way. Still hoping if it's true.

Exactly, we are saying the same things. During WWII and cold war the whole warfare was based on tanks, it changed now tanks are pretty much in a support role. That's what i meant by "lost their importance"

Correct, don't just fall in fancy looks. Abrams' fuel consumption, maintenance costs and heat emission are through the roof. It's one of weirdest tanks with it's turbine engine. Saudis chose the Osorio, not me. It came out as the winner of the tender but you know the rest. Enough derailing the thread.

Much more updated to the threats of the modern battlefield, yes.

Am I falling into fancy looks? Nope, Actually heat issue is one of Abrams very few problems, but it's armor protection, servivability, fire power, detecting capabilities, and electronics are the best in the world. Again, AH-64 can not be compared with T-129 ATAK at all, I have no time to search and go into details. As for Oserio, it was tested and considered along with AMX-40, Challenger-2, Abrams M1A1, Leopard-2, after long testing, Saudies chose Abrams M1A1, that's it.

 

[LegionnairE]

All i read was Apache outdated, tanks gone, T-129 FTW......

AH64 is the perfect tank hunter, even the 30mm DU is designed to penetrate Soviet armor. But arming against tanks and tanks only is wrong. With the different threats of the modern battlefield it's terribly wrong. Just look at Roketsan Cirit, it's extremely cheap and very effective against infantry groups and light armor. having a pod full of these can help an attack helicopter a lot, it's also the longest ranged member of it's class. AH64 Apache was an awesome solution against soviet tank columns but in today's battlefield environment T129 can do anything AH64 can, only a lot cheaper. So Apache in terms of avionics still the best but technically an outdated solution to pay money to. I really have no problem with you personally but this is getting annoying. This is my logic, you don't like it, fine but I really don't see the point in debating this further.

Am I falling into fancy looks? Nope, Actually heat issue is one of Abrams very few problems, but it's armor protection, servivability, fire power, detecting capabilities, and electronics are the best in the world. Again, AH-64 can not be compared with T-129 ATAK at all, I have no time to search and go into details. As for Oserio, it was tested and considered along with AMX-40, Challenger-2, Abrams M1A1, Leopard-2, after long testing, Saudies chose Abrams M1A1, that's it.

Armor protection and survivability, OK but firepower Abrams turret was originally designed for 105mm rifled gun, it can barely handle the 120mm L44. As for electronics, I'm not aware of any hard-kill or soft-kill systems that come with M1A2 but fire control system is OK. Leopard2A6/A7+ are the best operational tanks of the world with their MTU 12 cylinder 1500Hp engines and 120mm L55 Rheinmetall main guns. Hopefully ALTAY is about to surpass this standard by an even lower silhouette and superior armor protection.

About Osorio, it wasn't CONSIDERED it was CHOSEN as the optimal solution, Saudis procured Abrams M1 to get political leverage even @Mosamania didn't argue with this.

 

[Audio]

AH64 is the perfect tank hunter, even the 30mm DU is designed to penetrate Soviet armor. But arming against tanks and tanks only is wrong. With the different threats of the modern battlefield it's terribly wrong. Just look at Roketsan Cirit, it's extremely cheap and very effective against infantry groups and light armor. having a pod full of these can help an attack helicopter a lot, it's also the longest ranged member of it's class. AH64 Apache was an awesome solution against soviet tank columns but in today's battlefield environment T129 can do anything AH64 can, only a lot cheaper. So Apache in terms of avionics still the best but technically an outdated solution to pay money to. I really have no problem with you personally but this is getting annoying. This is my logic, you don't like it, fine but I really don't see the point in debating this further.

Ye, Apache can only fight against tanks. And T-129 can do it all despite being half the weight (hint- protection, room for modernization.) <<<< this is what you are saying. Nevermind the fact a MMW radar on the lab table doesnt equate to it being in use.

Also, your main focus seems to be the Cirit missile. Below is the equivalent for the Apache. The 4 narrow missiles.

In firing tests:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/trade-shows/farnborough/stories-from-the-show/dagr.html

 

[LegionnairE]

Ye, Apache can only fight against tanks. And T-129 can do it all despite being half the weight (hint- protection, room for modernization.) <<<< this is what you are saying. Nevermind the fact a MMW radar on the lab table doesnt equate to it being in use.

Nobody said Apache can only fight tanks. Apache was optimized to fight tanks. T129 can do anything that AH64 does with the same excellence, except tank hunting. And yes it includes MMW radar:
Meteksan Savunma - MILDAR

 

[ANPP]

Nobody said Apache can only fight tanks. Apache was optimized to fight tanks. T129 can do anything that AH64 does with the same excellence, except tank hunting. And yes it includes MMW radar:
Meteksan Savunma - MILDAR

T129 can hunt tanks, just need a formidable anti-tank missile in it.

 

[LegionnairE]

T129 can hunt tanks, just need a formidable anti-tank missile in it.

It CAN yes, but it can't carry 16x ATGMs or that gigantic 30mm ammo box... that's it.

Do we need that much weapons on T129? hell no, we'll have UCAVs and AC-235 fixed wing gunships to do the same job.