Baktar Shikan ATGMS
-
It is rumoured that someone up north has bought over 3000 of these ATGMS from pakistan. These ATGM's are actually pakistan locally produced Chinese HJ-8 (Hong Jian) ATGMS.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/hj-8.htm (summarised)
The PLA's second-generation anti-tank missile "Hongjian-8" [Red Arrow] was deployed in the late 1980s. This anti-tank missile has a long range and is accurate, dependable and powerful. It can pierce through armors 80mm thick. The front armor of the gun tower of Taiwan's best M60 tanks is only 110mm thick. The latest "Hongjian-8E" was finalized for production in the mid-1990. The "Hongjian-8E" has a range of four kilometers, and an estimated hit accuracy of over 90 percent. Since it is fitted with tandem warhead, it can pierce through tanks with reactive armor, and has an armor-piercing depth of over 100 millimeters. The "Hongjian-8E" can be carried by infantry soldiers or mounted on various types of vehicles and helicopters. The performance of the "Hongjian-8E" is similar to the "TOW" anti-tank missiles of the US army, and is better than the German and French "Milan" anti-tank missile.
In July 1997 Pakistan successfully tested two missile systems -- Anza and Baktar Shikan, which will add to its conventional military strength. Baktar Shikan is a second generation anti-tank guided missile weapon system which pursues the principle of optical aiming, IR tracking and automatically generated, remote controlled and wire transmitted guidance signals. The system can quickly be dis-assembled into the following four sub-units, each not weighing more than 25 Kgs, thus making the system man-portable:
Encased missile
IR Goniometer
Guidance unit
Tripod assembly
Aiming at the target through 12 magnifications sight of Goniometer, the firer presses the firing trigger and keeps the cross hairs of the sight on the target. The rest is done by the system itself, which automatically guides the missile to fly along the line of sight until it hits the target and a powerful warhead enables its destruction.
-
the northern chappies are learning from the Egyptians .... instead of fielding an equivalent armour force, saturate your infantry with anti-tank weapons ....
-
yep, thats not all, it is also heavily rumoured that after the ATGMS they were impressed by the tactics seen in afganistan and recent iraq that they went and bought a further 27,500 HEAT rocket of RPG-7 type from pakistan again.
-
JANEÂ’S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JULY 14, 2004
Malaysia accepts Pakistani ATGW
CHRISTOPHER F FOSS JDW Land Forces Editor
London
Malaysia has taken delivery of its Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV) 300-series tracked armoured vehicles fitted with the Pakistani Baktar Shikan anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW).
A contract was placed in late 2000 with FNSS Savunma Sistemleri of Turkey for 211 ACV 300 vehicles in 10 configurations. The 300 in the vehicleÂ’s designation denotes the output of the Detroit Diesel 6V-53T diesel engine in horsepower. The vehicle is called Adnan in Malaysian service.
Final deliveries are due later this year and an additional order is expected to be placed in the future.
One of the variants ordered by Malaysia is the ATGW configuration armed with the Baktar Shikan launcher mounted on a pedestal that can be retracted into the hull of the vehicle under full armour protection when not required. The launcher can also be deployed away from the vehicle on its tripod.
The vehicle is also armed with a 7.62mm machine gun and 76mm electrically operated smoke grenade launchers.
The Baktar Shikan is manufactured by the Institute of Industrial Control Systems (previously the Dr A Q Khan Research Laboratories) and is a further development of the China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) Red Arrow 8 ATGW. It is a wire-guided, command-to-line-of-sight system that only requires the operator to keep the sight locked onto the target to ensure a hit.
The original version had a maximum range of 3,000m and was fitted with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead. More recently, a tandem HEAT warhead has been developed for this missile to engage targets fitted with explosive reactive armour.
NORINCO has also developed a 3,500m-range version as well as alternative warheads. However, it is not known whether these improvements have been incorporated into the Pakistani versions.
The Baktar Shikan ATGWs were supplied to Malaysia under a separate contract placed with Pakistan three years ago and also included in this deal were Anza Mk I fire-and-forget man-portable surface-to-air missiles. -
We should install the TROPHY System, deployable on all types of armored vehicles.
http://serv.adspeed.com/ad.php?do=inter2&aid=34698&wd=550&ht=480&int=60&cls=10&wai=0&tz=-8&ck=Y&jv=Y&scr=1024x768x32&r=0.26698129533360127&ref=http%3A//search.yahoo.com/search%3Fp%3Danti+RPG-29%26prssweb%3DSearch%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3DFP-tab-i&uri=http%3A//www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/rpg-threat.htm
very impressive anti-rpg, anti-atgw, anti-grenade, protection system.
-
then for our infantry we must face up to reality that there will be challenges if we continue to use old weapons like the CG84mm.
We should be using the more advance RPG-29 system which is able to penetrate even russian's own T-90 MBT tanks. -
I agree with four-niner to a certain extent. The Carl Gustav is bulky and heavy, further more Russian anti-tank weapons can be quite good too. Even their old RPG have made many kills in Iraq and Afganistan. We should seriously be considering Russian military technology and not just only Western ones.
Here are some links for comparism
RPG29
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm
Carl Gustaf antitank recoilless rifle
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl10-e.htm
As a Singaporean and an armour personnel, i am concerned about this development. Is there any way to counter Malaysia's numerous anti-armour missiles? -
I am one of those unfortunate 84mm gunners. I think Singapore army seriously needs to dump away the Carl Gustav rifle. Firstly. eventhough man portable, it is still veri heavy at the weight of 16.1kg. Further more, it is veri old. I heard that we are using the ex-Indian weapons,isit?
The back-blast is atrociously long. 50m. Where can u achieve that in our cluttered environment? I have experienced many time when in a surprised encounter with enemy vehicles. The 84mm team is not reponsive enough to deal with the aggressor due to the back blast issue. Besides u need to waste time loading a round. -
The M3 variant only weights about 9 Kg and in Sweden the safety distance in wartime for personnel behind the weapon is 15 m. And since you have both AP, Smoke, Illum, Heat and bunker busting its a versatile weapon.Originally posted by equlus84:I am one of those unfortunate 84mm gunners. I think Singapore army seriously needs to dump away the Carl Gustav rifle. Firstly. eventhough man portable, it is still veri heavy at the weight of 16.1kg. Further more, it is veri old. I heard that we are using the ex-Indian weapons,isit?
The back-blast is atrociously long. 50m. Where can u achieve that in our cluttered environment? I have experienced many time when in a surprised encounter with enemy vehicles. The 84mm team is not reponsive enough to deal with the aggressor due to the back blast issue. Besides u need to waste time loading a round. -
that missile is no match for our latest acquisition la...
-
Do u mean E.T force?Originally posted by HENG@:that missile is no match for our latest acquisition la...
-
Nice Ghost Bear's Timber wolf , we shouldnt phased out e 84mm RR it cheap 2 supply unlike missile which is very ex , it versitile n is 1 of e weapon tat able 2 take out troop dig in2 trenches
-
you must see mah, your CG84 can penetrate PT-91 meh?
At least the russians confirmed that the RPG-29 can penetrate their T-90 mbt,
If T-90 can penetrate PT-91 sup sup sway leh rite?
somemore RPG-29 is recoiless like CG84 -
see nah ... http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html
20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials
On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.
T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.
One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.
The following weapons were used:
* Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
* RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem
warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
* RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
* RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
* ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
* Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
* Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
* Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
* Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
* APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the
most likely round is 3BM42)
Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
The trials yielded the following outcome:
ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations. No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target. No other ATGMs could penetrate.
APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence. Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.
CONCLUSIONS
RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.
Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.
Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is possible, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.
see the big big holes marked in red on the T80 and T90, dun play play ah russian ATGW is good ah. -
The main problem for 84mm is the weight and the back blast. Due to the fact most units are using the MK 1 and2. the heavy weight means that the 84 team is usually veri slow then trekking, worst is they face difficulties catching up with others. This is veri disadvantageous to us as our infantry battalions are designed to be light type. The 84 is also not responsive enough. If the there is a surprise encounter, the 84 team may not be able to fire due to back blast.
Thus I believe we shoulder look into the current MATADOR design. It is 90mm in calibre thus it has potential to be a MAW. Perhaps we could get a tandem type for it, thus efectively could replace Carl gustav rifle. The existing matador is also a little too heavy. 9 kg is no mean joke......, just imagine leopard crawling with it.
-
Seriously pity the 84 gunners....Seen them do road march before....the assistant with the 3 rounds of ammo look like turtle especially when our uniform and helmet is green! Damn it sure looks heavy!
-
E 84MM RR is not use primary as an anti-tank wpn but as an dicrect support wpn
usually use for assualting or defend a position. For anti-tank e primary wpn r Matadors n our ATGM -
yes that's true. it's normally deployed as a "support fire role" when somebody up there decides they wanna attack an objective.it is able to blow quite a bit of earth around with their roundsOriginally posted by spartan6:E 84MM RR is not use primary as an anti-tank wpn but as an dicrect support wpn
usually use for assualting or defend a position. For anti-tank e primary wpn r Matadors n our ATGM -
See ... You talk about fire supporting for our troops when they trying to overtake objectives as if the enemy will be firing out in the open meh?
On those objectives there will be a series of connecting trenches dug with thick thick overhead protection from airburst shrapnel. Then CG84 effective firing distance is only 700mters that means there are only very few places you can fire from like high knolls nearby that can offer good foilage free overhead view to do firesupport so you can be sure there will be someone waiting there for the CG84 team or maybe deploy a few sniper to wait there. Then how?
The good thing abt MBT in this region is that there are not many, PT-91 only got a few so that means they cannot afford to deploy so many around but then for major objectives you can be sure to find one or a few, if the whole batallion during MTC meets a T-80 or PT-91 does it have any weapon in the arsenal to take on these little buggers? Or everybody just drop everything and run away is it? At least with a few RPG-29 we no need to scare can still wallop them.
also some RPG rounds are thermobaric, with thermobaric firesupport is possible already and no matter how good your trench also cannot escape fuel explosive, fuel explosive when exploded becomes sticky like napalm goes into every nook and cranny burns everything shure die one.
CG84 old hunk of junk already ah even up north they are throwing it away to embrace the RPG we should be doing the same otherwise oneday we jialat ah. -
Let me ask u can RPG29 able 2 take out troops in trenches? e CG can FAE r very ex u know
-
How many FAE warhead can we afford? Even then for FAE 2 take out troops in trenches they must be air-brust wat is e fuze use by RPG29 any1 got any infor on tat?
-
For e trophy system well we never know MAYBE we have them
-
Ok lar you made a point there, maybe FAE is expensive to use against troops in trenches but possible, CG84 wun fare much better also, ok ok for troops in trenches we use the traditional fire and movement to take it out.
but Let me ask you back, you walk walk walk suddenly you see Pt91 or T80 can our current CG84 take it out or everybody turn ard and run back where you came? -
If u walk walk n c tank use your matadors lol anyway if tat happens u r very srewed 1 way or another
-
The FAE version of the RPG isn't that expensive leh. THe russians seemed to enjoy using it in chechnya...