Jump to content
Deputy276

No LAHAT missiles on Leo tanks?

Recommended Posts

I did a forum search but couldn't find any info on this. AFAIK, the LAHAT missile started being equipped, or at least available, starting with the Leo 2. Certainly the Leo 2A5 had them available. But I don't see any Leo tanks with them. I see Russian MBTs with missiles, but not the Leo. Any reason for this? LAHAT is a devastating ATGM with a 95% probability of kills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a test done by Rheinmetal. But no nation that has the Leo in service adopted it...there is no existing Leo in service that is equiped to fire the LAHAT nor are there missles any leo operators ammo stores...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leopard is able to fire it allright.

 

But the politicians have chosen not to buy it.

 

I for one would like the possibility to simulate the politicians pulling their head out of their behinds for once, by having the option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nike-Ajax said:

The Leopard is able to fire it allright.

 

But the politicians have chosen not to buy it.

 

I for one would like the possibility to simulate the politicians pulling their head out of their behinds for once, by having the option.

The Leopard is able to fire it, yes...but the fire control systems are not able to give a firing solution, nor are any components installed to guide the missle.

In short: You need a costly upgrade for all you vehicles, for a very very limited benefit for most european users.

=> LOS is rarely long enough to make such a missle necessary

=> you need to actively illuminate the target to guide in the missle...that not very practical when you opponent is not some donkey-herder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wiki, the LAHAT uses a laser designator. All they need is a scout vehicle to lase the target and the LAHAT follows it:

 

"The LAHAT is designed to achieve a 95 percent probability of kill under most conditions.[3] It has a semi-active laser guidance system, capable of both direct and indirect laser designation—the target can be laser-designated by the launching platform (e.g. firing tank) or other platform (e.g. another tank, helicopter, UAV, or forward scouting team), requiring minimal exposure in the firing position. With a low launch signature, the missile’s trajectory can be set to match either top attack (armoured fighting vehicle, warship) or direct attack (helicopter gunship) engagements."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Grenny

 

Valid points - except for at least one very important thing:

 

The LAHAT´s were never ever meant to stand alone.

 

The usefullness is specifically in engaging the opponent OUTSIDE their weapons effective engagement envelope, hence detection is only an interesting factor if it enables the prey to evade. And the very nature of semi-active homing counteracts the countermeasures to some degree.  Also unless you have one shot kill-and-scoot, then both kinetic, HEAT and the british plastique rounds indicates the fires position.

 

In other words then just as the russian only placed 4 Gun-missiles in one tank, then this would only be a part of the tool box, with HEAT, Squash-head or SABOT doing the brunt of the work. Perhaps one or two rounds before switching to SABOT. It always occured to me to be a superficial and as usually condacending western attitude towards the russians to say that it was because they were too expensive that they only placed around 4 missiles in each capable tank. Rather to me it seems silly to put much more than that because the enemy will rather quickly be in engagement range. And you should displace after engaging the enemy anyway.

 

ALSO the LAHAT means that you can effectively hit a helicopter.

 

AND you dont need a firing solution. You need to be able to lase the target.

 

As for the laser designator then compared to the other kit on a MBT its a cheap, easy and COTS piece of equipment. And could EASILY be attached to the commanders sight - thuis leaving the gunner free to attack the next target with HEAT, SABOT

or COAX.

 

In other words then this is just another tool in the toolbox. I always consider weapons as a tool and have never ever been religious about them. They have to work, be effective and do the job.

 

Regarding the LOS I respectfully but completletly disagree: The german plains, including the fulda gap have the LOS. The Baltic region has them. Ukraine has them in spades. Poland has them.... and India has them.  I could go on but there is a reason I chose those examples.

 

The west did not buy the LAHAT because the politcians chose not to (yet) for economic reasons. In other words they wasted the money on other project a large proportion of which will never ever work. Not because the LAHAT did not work OR because it didnt add a usefull capability.

 

Much like NOT adding a remote controlled weapon station. OR choosing inferior lightly armed and armored wheeled apc´s instead of tracked Infantry Combat Vehicles...

 

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well for some of those comments you might just get a Crow like the one from kongsberg and attach the javalin system to it.. cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you want to model things just because they "might have been" you are off into WoT territory.

 

The guys here are flat out modelling what was/is in fact used, let alone sparing time for random might have been projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long has these missiles been around?  30- 40 years?  How many times have they been used in combat?  ....That's how useful they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Israelis sure got a surprise in their 1973 war when they encountered a crapload of missiles fired by Egypt. They are so concerned that they have developed special anti-missile equipment on their tanks to defeat it. That being the "Trophy" system. They realized from the losses in the war of 1973 that you can't sit back and be reactive to advances in ATGM systems. It's no longer "might have been", but is now "ARE".  The US is considering and testing the Trophy and other anti-missile systems for the Stryker vehicles. You can't prepare your tanks for battle based on old technology and Cold War specs. If you aren't up-to-date, you will lose. No country wants to be "surprised" by something in combat. Just because something HASN'T been used often, doesn't mean it WON'T be used in the future. More simply...better to be safe, than sorry.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Homer said:

How long has these missiles been around?  30- 40 years?  How many times have they been used in combat?  ....That's how useful they are.

 

Try less than 20....

 

And I fail to see the relevance between your argument and your conclusion.

 

Also what facts do you base your claim on - do you know for a fact what the Israeli have used in combat for the last 20 years?

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DK-DDAM said:

well for some of those comments you might just get a Crow like the one from kongsberg and attach the javalin system to it.. cheaper.

 

No is the short version

 

LAHAT has a range of 8.000+ meters

Javelin has a range of less than 5000 meters.

 

Also you would have to dismount to reload. Also I kinda doubt if the Javelin could take the treatment of being outside the Tank as it moves cross-country.

 

So hardly the same

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well still cheaper plus  with the javalin its still one of the best AT weapon platforms out there.. so id still say that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Well if you want to model things just because they "might have been" you are off into WoT territory.

 

The guys here are flat out modelling what was/is in fact used, let alone sparing time for random might have been projects.

 

The LAHAT have been tested thourghly by the Germans and Rheinmetall/KMW. So HARDLY a "random might have project".

 

In fact it might augment the next evolution of the Leo 2.

 

Especially with the dressed up Leo 2A4´s that the Bundeswehr are getting ready to use.

To not fight the Russians. When they are not coming.

 

I really have to point out that I am not pointing fingers at anyone, including Esim. Nor am I accusing anyone of anything  (except the politicians and the civil servants in the defence ministries, but they deserve it IMHO).

There is a relevant and rational use for the simulation of said ammunition, given the geo-political climate in the world in general and in Europe in particular. And the fact that it could be implemented almost immediately on existing western MBT´s.

 

If it is too hard or expensive to code in the simulation, then fine and no problem. But that is another discussion entirely.

 

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DK-DDAM said:

well still cheaper plus  with the javalin its still one of the best AT weapon platforms out there.. so id still say that..

 

With all due respect: you are completlely missing the points:

 

1) Range. The Javelin has almost the same range as the the Rheinmetall L/55 120mm. As seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun#Rheinmetall_L.2F55_120mm

Which INCIDENTLY ALSO compares it to the LAHAT.

The whole point is that LAHAT will have a significant advantage with regard to the range, as compared to the existing tank cannons.

 

So incomparable and a big difference there.

 

2) It is fired under cover through the existing cannon, and fits the existing ammunition storage there as well. Like I wrote above, then this is NOT a standalone weapon system. But rather a part of the existing ammunition mix.

So MUCH more flexible and able to be a full and immediate part of the combat load by the commanders judgment.

 

So incomparable and a big difference there.

 

3) It uses the existing sighting apparatus - apart from a COTS laser designator, which in a miltary context costs pennies. So better long range (which is what we are discussing here) sighting.

 

So incomparable and a big difference there.

 

4) It would be per shot FAR FAR cheaper with a LAHAT: A Javelin missile costs around $78.000, whereas a LAHAT costs around $25.000

And that is WITHOUT the Javelin launcher system that costs around $126.000 AND a Kongsberg Remote weapon system which costs more than that.

 

SO NOT cheaper. At all. The opposite is true in fact. 

 

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nike-Ajax said:

 

The LAHAT have been tested thourghly by the Germans and Rheinmetall/KMW. So HARDLY a "random might have project".

 

In fact it might augment the next evolution of the Leo 2.

 

Especially with the dressed up Leo 2A4´s that the Bundeswehr are getting ready to use.

To not fight the Russians. When they are not coming.

 

 

Don't compare the Germans with Rheinmetall... Even the english Wiki entry is simply wrong since the German Leo2 is no user of Lahat Missiles nor is it (to my knowledge) planned to introduce or even take this missile into Account for the Upgrades to the A7 standard. Even for the new showcase of the Leo3 is notthing like that stated according to reliable and official sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don't compare the Germans with Rheinmetall"

 

Rheinmetall IS German ... What IS your point ?

 

Leo 3 is not even on a teststage yet, right now its just a political debate.

 

The FACT of the actual matter is that Leo2 Revolution is a concrete solution to the pressing problem, namely that Germany have too few tanks, to handle the military threath facing them. So they put a kit on old Leo2A4´s that are in storeage and call it a new tank. 

 

Anyway that has nothing at all to do with the arguments I mounted above.

 

 

And thus this is it for me.

 

With all due respect for everybodys opinions, then I am not going to waste more time on this. I have made my points, do with that what you will.

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nike-Ajax said:

"Don't compare the Germans with Rheinmetall"

 

Rheinmetall IS German ... What IS your point ?

 

Rheinmetall is an international Company of german origin. When speaking about "Germans tested xyz" you should look at the "Bundesamt für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Office_of_Bundeswehr_Equipment,_Information_Technology_and_In-Service_Support) which never tested the Lahat. This was my point and not meant offensive but you should also check your Statements as you demand it from other guys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its "might have been" because no one has bought it and no one has used it.

 

The guys work on things "in service" so the customer can train on stuff that is in use in real life.

 

Since its not in use because no one has bought it, there is no point in modelling it as a priority.

 

You may want it to be in use, but it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark; the "guys" also test what might be getting into service...that some branch if the forces wants to get into service and even stuff that some politician thinks is a good idea.

And afaik LAHAT never got onto the "short list"

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I see the big advantage of ATGM as Spike or Javelin that have a  Fire and forget and Top down attack capabilities, I fail to see how the LAHAT as it was designed could offer  better than  those missiles.

Most tanks would never have the chance to see targets at 8k unless a really realli flat terrain and very favourable visibility conditions.

Said this even steering a missile using the gun sight at 8 km and being able to hit a maneuvering target is not a easy feat.

Regarding hitting helicopters, well just try it in game with a moving helo using a TOW, MILAN ect. Not really easy

If it is static and hovering it is no problem but hovering helicopters are easy targets for any weapon in range.

 

I do not say that LAHAT it is a bad idea but unless it implements features such the Spike or Javelin fire and forget and top down attack or I do not see this like a really big advantage.

In thie other hand we have to start thinking that we do need more  "affordable" ammunitions. Because not all tank targets would be highly expensive objetives. As it was discovered during the Gulf War,  destroying old trucks with very very expensive AGM-65 MAvericks or Hellfires was not a good idea. You may ran out uf money before the enemy rans out of trucks, Technicals ect.

The actual modern tank rounds are not really very cheap and sometimes the targets are less worth than the ammo cost.

Cost is also a factor to consider into the "overall value" of a weapon system or ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nike-Ajax said:

 

Try less than 20....

 

And I fail to see the relevance between your argument and your conclusion.

 

Also what facts do you base your claim on - do you know for a fact what the Israeli have used in combat for the last 20 years?

 

I should have mentioned that I was referring to ALL missiles of this type, not the LAHAT specifically.  I am very curious about these and want more information especially combat performance.  Other than the Shillelagh missile, there is a lack of any sort of information on the combat uses for this entire weapon class.  I mean, nothing.  More significantly, you don't see phrases like "combat tested", "battle proven", and "in service with the XXX army" in the manufacturer's brochures.  All available evidence points in one direction.  I am not wrong to claim that a weapon that hasn't been used in combat in over 40 years kinda makes it a useless weapon for combat.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Furia said:

While I see the big advantage of ATGM as Spike or Javelin that have a  Fire and forget and Top down attack capabilities, I fail to see how the LAHAT as it was designed could offer  better than  those missiles.

Most tanks would never have the chance to see targets at 8k unless a really realli flat terrain and very favourable visibility conditions.

Said this even steering a missile using the gun sight at 8 km and being able to hit a maneuvering target is not a easy feat.

Regarding hitting helicopters, well just try it in game with a moving helo using a TOW, MILAN ect. Not really easy

If it is static and hovering it is no problem but hovering helicopters are easy targets for any weapon in range.

 

I do not say that LAHAT it is a bad idea but unless it implements features such the Spike or Javelin fire and forget and top down attack or I do not see this like a really big advantage.

In thie other hand we have to start thinking that we do need more  "affordable" ammunitions. Because not all tank targets would be highly expensive objetives. As it was discovered during the Gulf War,  destroying old trucks with very very expensive AGM-65 MAvericks or Hellfires was not a good idea. You may ran out uf money before the enemy rans out of trucks, Technicals ect.

The actual modern tank rounds are not really very cheap and sometimes the targets are less worth than the ammo cost.

Cost is also a factor to consider into the "overall value" of a weapon system or ammunition.

Tanks equipped with the LAHAT DON"T HAVE TO SEE their targets. They can use a laser designator and F&F the missile. And before you say that's not an efficient method, lets not forget the VERY successful Copperhead system that was used to great advantage in Iraq. As to shooting helicopters, that would depend on the helicopters you are trying to shoot. No, I wouldn't like to try and shoot down a moving OH-6 Cayuse. It would probably be impossible to even track it with the turret. But an Mi-26 or a Chinook or maybe even a Sea Stallion would make a nice, fat target. I don't know what country you are from, but budgetary worries really don't come into the picture during wartime. Israel is certainly not a wealthy country, and they are the ones that developed the LAHAT. Plus our recent Tomahawk missilefest on Syria cost a pretty penny and we aren't even at war with them. And your argument about $$ being spent doesn't hold water because Nike-Ajax already gave you the costs of LAHAT vs Javelin.

 

"Its "might have been" because no one has bought it and no one has used it."

Hmmmm....I suspect the Israeli Army might dispute that. But getting exact data/information from them is not an easy thing to do, as the lack of Merkava III and IV tanks in SB indicates. Israel is reluctant to blab to the world about everything they do or use in combat. Mainly because it gives ammo (pardon the pun) and propaganda to anti-Israeli forces. No doubt the enemies they face would find some way of twisting the use of the LAHAT to some horrendous act of terror. We also really don't know what is going on in the Ukraine as far as tanks using missiles. Both countries have them and I don't think they would be reluctant to use them if the possibility arose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Deputy276 said:

"Its "might have been" because no one has bought it and no one has used it."

Hmmmm....I suspect the Israeli Army might dispute that.

 

The thread topic is "No LAHAT missiles on Leo tanks?"

 

Pretty confident that my remark is accurate in that context or are you now saying that the Israeli's have bought a Leopard 2 variant with a LAHAT missile option fitted?

 

You are asking eSim to model a  Leopard 2 with an LAHAT missile fitted. I'm saying no one has bought that, nor has anyone used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...