Iran Military Forum

Yes this idea of stealth truck is a good one . In case of Iran where air cover may not be available and heavy tank may be roaming the countryside then any Iranian ground vehicle has to think about surviving the odds . But how in limited resource environment ? With given terrain of mountain and desert and no vegetation for cover ? You mentioned that this trucks can be stealth ( as opposed to noisy metal buckets that can be seen from AWACS and ground radar ) . This will allow this vehicle to sneak upto target without being noticed , but once it attacks then  it's cover is blown !

It will then come under fire and unless it can escape or hide then it will be destroyed . Either from the ground or the air . As it makes the attack  it can use jamming , smoke or flares , but then to survive a counter attack it has to make withdrawal . It is no good to deploy countermeasures then because of the difficulty in creating  escape path back to it's hide-out  . So it must live very close to it's bunker to hide .

The same can be said about any vehicle be it Jeep , Truck , APC , AFV , Tank etc . Without air cover they simply can not fight in the open for long . ( the worst case scenario assume Iran can not build or buy planes ) . So this truck and any other vehicle to be effective has to have a good home nearby . So realistically thousands of bunkers are needed to hide all vehicles from air attack .

In case of any ongoing operation . Iran must deploy countermeasures on massive scale against enemy plane and tank . This means using industrial scale smoke and chaff and jamming and  flares to allow attack by ground troops and return of troops to bunkers under cover of mist or fog  !

@lompe

Yes this tank destroyer is very close to the concept I had in mind . However I would change a few features on this TD to make it better . First , I remove the Turret and gun giving it extra low profile . This is because it already has some protection against attack by helicopter and  30 mm is only good against truck and Jeep and there is other troop for that . The gun reduces it's chance of survival against main threat the tank and is contradictory to it's prime function . If possible I add option of TV guided wire guided anti-tank . This is because if it dispense smoke , then it has no ability to fight back . So it contradicts it's own main weapon the radio  guided missile . I like all the other feature on this , the engine is T 72 , so this makes things simpler and it has low RCS also and is fast . Alternatve solid rubber tyres may make it quieter and GPMG against infantry also good .It need to carry more ATGW ( 6-8 min ) and ability to similtaniously target and fire would be definite advantage .( perhaps by allowing all crew to participate in firing , even driver , by firing from temporary static position ! )

The main threat Iran face is from tank attack by US . Not human wave attack from Bangladesh .So in this predictable scenario there is a need for specialist weapons and specialist tank destroyers . If for example M60 is used as a generalist weapon for using fragmentation ! round against infantry ( attack from Bangladesh ) then sure keep the 105 mm gun and all the stored ammo and no need to change gun and just a new 105 mm missile to be launched ( in case US attack ) from slow and tall vehicle . But if attack from US tank then forget fragmentation round and think about launching several anti-tank missile from low and fast vehicle . The cost of second system is more than first ( or so appears ) . But the cost of loosing war is greater . So vehicles like this or home made modifications are the most bang you get for your money against US TANKS . An idea for a TV wire guided missile  like TOW or Toophan is to have trajectory like the Javelin  or be fired in arc . With wire guided making sure the wire come out regular is important as the wind resistance at high arc may mean it  drag the line out incorrectly . One way to make sure that wire is spooled out correctly may be to allow wire to have small air brake  like nodules and increasing it's resistance and pulling out more wire smoothly .

Belarus has something like this.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/2t_stalker.htm

Not exactly, you need completely plastic chassis and no metal armor at all.
Plastic tank will not appear as bright dot on enemy's Air Plane's Radar. But 2T Stalker might show up on Radar since it has metal armor.

Here is picture of 2T Stalker with correct Light Tank's armament.
 
Anti Tank: 2 x Ataka (AT-6 Spiral) missiles.
Anti Helicopter: 2 x  Igla (SA-18 Grouse) missiles, 30-mm cannon (AP).
Anti Light Tank (APC): 2 x Ataka (AT-6 Spiral) missiles, 30-mm cannon (AP).
Anti IFV: 2 x Ataka (AT-6 Spiral) missiles, 30-mm cannon (AP).
Anti Civilian Vehicle: 30-mm cannon (AP, HE), 7.62-mm machine gun, 30-mm automatic grenade launcher.
Anti Infantry: 30-mm cannon (HE), 7.62-mm machine gun, 30-mm automatic grenade launcher.

Numbers if tank is buit from composite and plastic then how much protection is offered against 30 mm AP and 50 cal round ?
How much kevlar is needed for this ? Because once this TD launch weapon it looses stealth and is vulnerable until it escape to safe area or put cammo net on !  The Yanks could detect from air , the heat of launch and point of launch of Taliban RPG and target them from air .

@commandant

This are experimental machine for very far future ( next 20-50 years ) . They will not survive even simple attack by soldier now .
They rely on internal sensor and computer that is very primitive compared to human right now . They also depend on data link for remote control . Radio communication is very sensitive and can easy be disrupted . What we need is what can Iran do in the next 4-5 years ( in near future ) with homegrown technology and resources . So we need a little realism here ! So far there is two realistic ideas and one unrealistic idea .

(1) Use chassis of tank ( without turret ) or APC and convert to missile launcher . With updated Toophan TV guided . Attack from bunker at foothill of mountain into flat land of tank and at short range ( 10 km max ) . Deploy smoke and return to base under cover of smoke . Keep tracked vehicle because cheap . Bigger vehicle allow upto 8 Toophan . Crew of 3 or 4 allow salvo shooting . There is enough armour against 30 mm and 50 cal and shrapnel of unguided rocket of helicopter . Smoke provide cover against everything if wind is right ! Can be done in next 1-2 years . Cost low to medium . Main cost is bunkers . Smoke generation equipment and update of Toophan relatively cheaper .Effectiveness and outcome medium .


(2) Build completely new plastic chassis ( smaller vehicle ) with attack from open position in desert under camo . Use kevlar and composite for armour .Use Kornet or Spiral missile . Use solid rubber tyre to be quiet . Have electric drive for attack .Range of operation bigger as no need for bunker  . Use 2 missile per vehicle . Or two man crew . More research needed into kevlar and composite against 30 mm and 50 cal .Cost of new vehicles and buying foriegn missile higher .Effectiveness and outcome higher pending effectiveness and cost of new armour .

(3) Sink more money into research for unmanned ground vehicle . With unknown outcome  at unknown time . May be we end up with something really good in what number of years ? With high risk and high capital needed .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_missile
 

Numbers if tank is buit from composite and plastic then how much protection is offered against 30 mm AP and 50 cal round ?

100+ mm of kevlar will protect the vehicle from 30 mm (AP) and 50 cal (AP) rounds.

Because once this TD launch weapon it looses stealth and is vulnerable until it escape to safe area or put cammo net on !  The Yanks could detect from air, the heat of launch and point of launch of RPG and target them from air.

Camo net is alway on. After "hot launch" of Anti Tank missile the Stealth Truck has to change location fast. So its launch location can not be scanned by human UAV operator.

In 5 minutes (after change of location) Stealth Truck is hidden again.

yes ich , you are right . Easy to defeat with paint ball ! And numbers I just thought about problem of camo net and being visible by image intensifier and day time attack . I like your idea of permanent camo net . But instead of net why not shape the kevlar outer hull to look like large rock or sand dune ? You need t have a skirt around vehicle to be raised to allow for ground clearance when moving and when stopped just lower the skirt over lower half of vehicle and wheels . The enemy tank have to fire at every rock and sand dune in fear for their life ! And also no need to waste time with putting net up after attack . 

Yes we can achieve low RCS with materials or with shape or both . Whatever is easiet and best . Cammo net has advantage as you said but so does rock . But not many soldier like the idea ! Because it look crazy ! About being observed when launch made from UAV , why not seperate the vehicle from launcher first and then launch ? If truck or quad releases the launch box and retreat quietly one or two miles and signal from missile is relayed with wire to them the point of launch is secret and    very difficult to find vehicle itself in 2 mile radious ? Vehicle may not even need as much armour !

ROCK TEXTURES	Small | Large

This system (CROWS) allows crew to be seperate from weapon . M1A1 uses crows to fire GPMG remotely . ROV's are used in large numbers in toxic environment or radioactive environment or deep sea also . The case of using a remote operated system is a good one , if Iran develop them they can be used in a variety of situations for example top of tank also .Once missile box is dropped in position and operator locks on moving target , then vehicle can depart to nearby location . If vehicle travel at 30 mph under battery power it takes two minutes to go one mile . At this point operator fires missile and tracks via relay signal  . There is high chance of survival and success . The missile box can be armoured against attack also . Cost high but survivability high also . These ROV's can be standard to be used from all different vehicles .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Remotely_Operated_Weapon_System

This whole discussion  was a result of the idea that M60 was not modern for tank to tank fight . My reply was that use could be made of the hull and engine to convert to Tank destroyer . Or M60 could have bigger 125 mm gun . Numbers suggest another option for tank destroyer . A completely new composite machine with new capability . But why not include MBT  like Z3 in this conversation ? Because MBT are mainly good for offensive operation ( operation in enemy territory) , where they have to break through prepared defensive positions and fight enemy armour (  advance and gain territory under fire  ) . This needs  heavy armour and speed and high speed round against other armour . But much more importantly using tank in offensive operation needs a situation that air power exist either to nullify the enemy air  power or have air superiority ( in this case no need for MBT in offensive operation anyway )  . Modern advances in air power have shown this . Can tank  ( MBT ) be used in defensive operations without air power ? The answer is yes they can providing : they can not be hit by enemy air power . ( Same as offensive operations). This means having bunkers and hitting at short range and mixing with enemy armour so that air power can not distinguish between friend or foe and becomes nullified and using smoke also .

But does Iran gain anything by capturing territory such as port and airport of enemy by offensive operations ? Will Iran be able to use this  resources during war time ? The most probabale gain is in having better negotiating position after the war . More POW's etc . Iran could alternatively slowly destroy enemy possessions instead of capture . It could do this using existing technology of ballistic missiles . This could also provide political leverage during the war , instead of after any war . So having a large offensive tank force that necessarily needs a capable air force  isnt quite compatible with Iran's present military capability or interest . So will Iran need any heavy tanks in offensive operations ? My answer is that initially for the first six month when air force can provide air cover it can . But not  permenantly . In this case a small to medium force in limited geographical locations where numerical superiority of tanks can be maintained and air cover exist then yes . But what happens after six months ? When there is no air cover for tanks . Then either tanks are destroyed on the ground or they are in bunkers in Iran .

So a huge expenditure in offensive tank force , where there is no air force or air cover  ( a prolonged war with US mean Iran planes destroyed or not take off ) and also Russia will most probably not sell any under this conditions , does not make sense . So enemy armour will break through Iran defence line , because enemy bombs hit & let armour pass through . So now new situation of enemy armour in Iran countryside  ! So under this condition having small fast quiet stealth vehicle that fight in hit and run or small group and evade being hit from air is needed . Using existing home made technology and weapons . Sure Iran can put it's remaining  MBT into fight but soon they will also be finished .

I don't know if we should call this vehicles tank or IFV or ....may be tank destroyer is best name . They will be used on their own using unique tactic to be developed for assymetric war of swarming and hit and run . At close range . Ofcourse the yanks have shown that if their military is hit  in Iraq and Afghanistan that they will hit civilian targets . They have air power etc . In this case if they do this Iran has long range ICBM !!!

So money of mass producing Z3 , now should be spent on  (1) Z3 research and making advanced FCS and armour etc  , but no factory of Z3 yet . and   (2) Money for research of engine of fighters for SA3  fighters  and (3) Making large number of asymmetric vehicle in defensive positions in Iran . Until fighter is produced  then make Z3 factory and make 1000 of them  .

@ commandant carlos

I just looked at list of Iranian tanks on wiki and here is the list :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Iranian_Army

And also :

Armored Vehicles
Iranian made Zulfiqar tank

    * Zulfiqar MBT - Developed from U.S. M60 Patton[72]
    * T-72Z Safir-74 - Indigenously upgraded Soviet T-54/55 and Chinese Type 59[72]
    * Mobarez - Indigenously upgraded of British Chieftain.
    * T-72S - Soviet T-72 produced under license in Iran[72]
    * Tosan - Iranian light tank for unconventional warfare, developed from British FV101 Scorpion.[73]
    * Cobra BMT-2 - Concept vehicle for the Boragh armed with 23 mm anti-aircraft gun for use as a fire support vehicle.[74]
    * Boragh - Copy of Soviet BMP-1 with indigenous upgrades[72]
    * Rakhsh - Developed from Soviet BRDM[72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_manufactured_in_Iran

Now so far there is 3 different calibre of gun of MBT  on this tanks ( Made in Iran ) : (1) 125 mm of T-72S  & Z3 ( not clear if  use same ammo ) (2) Mobarez 120 mm  (3) Safir 74  105 mm . This means that Iran manufactures  at least one 125 barrel of the T 72-s and also manufacture or refurbish two other barrels for Mobarez and Safir 74 ! It also means  Iran buys or makes  at least upto half a dozen or dozen different shell for this tanks !!

Iran also has 75 of T62 @ 115 mm and 150 of  M60 @ 105 mm ( not clear if can use same ammo as Safir 74 ) and 80 of M48 @ 90 mm ? and 88 of M47 @ 90 mm ? ( Not made in Iran ) .This means that Iran has to buy at least four  more shell  and probably as many as 9 more shell for these !!

So at maximum a total of 20 different shells and calibre and types !!! Setting aside speed and armour for a while , the main attribute or quality of tank apart from machine gun is the main gun . The best option in my mind is to replace where possible all tank with 125 mm gun ( including Mobarez , Safir 74 , T 62 , M 60  and even M47 and M48 )  and make sure Iran also manufacture 3 or four shell for them instead of twenty . As far as other spare part , It may be too expensive to manufacture new part or buy part for old tanks . So scavange old tanks until no more part and then build more  Z3 as they become obsolete .
  

Zulfiqar 3: I thought that Chieftain.