Army orders ALCOTAN Shoulder Fired Anti Tank Weapon System

[Thorough Pro]

No body is going to buy tons of tubes, it is an unguided rocket and can easily be produced in POF. Besides everyone is missing the main point, look at this acquisition in the back drop of Cold start doctrines that relies on a quick armour charge, and these light weight, comparatively affordable weapons are quite effective in neutralizing tanks by a team of 2/3 soldiers from a distance of 5/6 hundred meters. This is a small weapon like an RPG, not a big ticket item.

The firing unit VOSEL is for aiming and acquiring the target. It gets interfaced with the rocket housed in a environmentally sealed resin based disposable tube. A soldier will normally carry One VOSEL unit and 2-3 rockets sealed in the resin tube. Once the rocket is fired the resin tube becomes useless and disposable and is thrown away. The reason this system was purchased on the fast track is because someone can make tons of money on continually buying the sealed rocket tube from INSTALAZA forever. No ToT has been signed for this purchase with any local manufacturer. Like I said, corruption in this deal is very evident and the serving Major General who was superseded will end up with hefty commissions through the local company. The General's retirement financial plan is secured without check. The said project has been funded under SADA funds (total allocated funds around US$25 million) and procurement of the system will be done every year based on the availability of funds. Initial purchase is of around US$3 million this year. Its a very bad & very expensive deal for the Army

 

[Zarvan]

For the umpteenth time C-90 is obsolete
M2 that PA acquired are the later version and in your excitement to show your all knowing attitude you didn't even notice the range, warhead size, and the penetration.

I am out, don't tell me you knew everything.



for your info all modern portable anti tank are now in disposable tubes because of ease in storage, logistics and carrying, but you keep loving your RPG's of 1847

Dude I want RPG 7 gone I have discussed with Horus and other guys what can be the replacement. I have been raising voice about it for sometime now but I don't want a disposable system to replace it. We should get one which launcher remains same and can fire as many times as the soldier want and don't have to dispose it. Secondly I can show you several websites which are saying C-90 is now replacing Aloctan 100. There is possibility that some C-90 version is introduced

The firing unit VOSEL is for aiming and acquiring the target. It gets interfaced with the rocket housed in a environmentally sealed resin based disposable tube. A soldier will normally carry One VOSEL unit and 2-3 rockets sealed in the resin tube. Once the rocket is fired the resin tube becomes useless and disposable and is thrown away. The reason this system was purchased on the fast track is because someone can make tons of money on continually buying the sealed rocket tube from INSTALAZA forever. No ToT has been signed for this purchase with any local manufacturer. Like I said, corruption in this deal is very evident and the serving Major General who was superseded will end up with hefty commissions through the local company. The General's retirement financial plan is secured without check. The said project has been funded under SADA funds (total allocated funds around US$25 million) and procurement of the system will be done every year based on the availability of funds. Initial purchase is of around US$3 million this year. Its a very bad & very expensive deal for the Army

In your opinion what weapon should replace RPG-7 ?

 

[Hell hound]

You gotta be kidding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no kidding mate missile is too sensitive to be carried like rpg round.
extracts from Wikipedia
The system consists of three main components - the Command Launch Unit, the disposable Launch Tube Assembly and the missile itself packed in Launch Tube Assembly .
Both of the gunner and the ammunition bearer carry a disposable tube called the Launch Tube Assembly, which houses the missile and protects the missile from harsh environments. The tube also has built in electronics and a locking hinge system that makes attachment and detachment of the missile to and from the Command Launch Unit a very quick and simple process.

 

[PAR 5]

No body is going to buy tons of tubes, it is an unguided rocket and can easily be produced in POF. Besides everyone is missing the main point, look at this acquisition in the back drop of Cold start doctrines that relies on a quick armour charge, and these light weight, comparatively affordable weapons are quite effective in neutralizing tanks by a team of 2/3 soldiers from a distance of 5/6 hundred meters. This is a small weapon like an RPG, not a big ticket item.

Show me where ToT with POF has been agreed to and signed by INSTALAZA? US$25 million for Pakistan is a big ticket item and not peanuts! the tube is disposable and good for one time use only, the VOSEL unit is nothing without the formally sealed rocket tube and if the electronics in VOSEL unit for some reason go bad, you will be unable to use the entire system. Pakistan Army will also have to set up a repair facility ultimately for the repairing of the VOSEL units in Pakistan or send them to Spain. That is also an extra dollar value not presently charted here. So your contention of this being a small ticket item is not agreed to

Dude I want RPG 7 gone I have discussed with Horus and other guys what can be the replacement. I have been raising voice about it for sometime now but I don't want a disposable system to replace it. We should get one which launcher remains same and can fire as many times as the soldier want and don't have to dispose it. Secondly I can show you several websites which are saying C-90 is now replacing Aloctan 100. There is possibility that some C-90 version is introduced


In your opinion what weapon should replace RPG-7 ?

Russia has opened up to us. Instead of jumping the gun to go for ALCOTAN 100, we should explore options to get updated versions of RPG in tandem and bunker busting warheads from Russia. I can assure you that this ALCOTAN 100 system will eventually & only be used on LoC to destroy Indian bunkers and posts.

 

[pzfz]

It could've worked out better if the tube was reusable. This is simply a bad acquisition. One can try to rationalize it all he wants.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think it's an inconsequential reason. If soldiers can't be trained to keep their fire control units with them, then why would you trust them with the task? In fact, in the off situation where you have to abandon your rockets (or lose them to an ambush), busting or losing the fire control unit could prevent the enemy from using those rockets. It might also prevent malicious actors from readily framing you by using those rockets.

As for taking it up a mountain. 10 kg is a dream for donkeys

Can it be fired from heli borne troops where both the heli and the target is moving?

fun fact javelin is also a disposable system

I am willing to overlook that given the awesomeness of the system. But I realize it is also very pricey and bulky. All trade-offs. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be too bad to have a few of these...

 

[Arsalan]

Problem is confusion about which one is new and which one is old is not even ending some websites say alocatn 100 is replacing C90 some are saying opposite

Let me try?? AGAIN?


C90 is single shot system
There are two variants
C90-CR (M3)
C90-CS
Then there is a new development called "C90 - Reusable", this as the name suggest, is reusable.

ALCOTAN is a new product by same company. It is also disposable. It have more range and may be better penetrator and is replacing C90 system in military service.

Hazrat the official website makes many things clear. C90 Reusable, C90-CR M3, ALCOTAN 100 M2

That is it, No confusion no fuss Hazrat!!

One have to OPEN that site to learn about this. Some just rely on "sources" too much and spend more time on facebook looking for "authentic news". This is a pretty simple thing to google.

First I was confused because I thought C-90 was new system and Alotcan was old. But now I know Alotcan is new but still I don't want it this because sorry I am finding it hard to digest how on earth you can buy a weapon which is basically fires only one rocket from its tube than you have to change it. It's like a Gun fires only one bullet and than you have to change the barrel. It would be dam costly Sir

Dude I knew about Pakistani Army delegation visiting spain a year ago. But I didn't knew they have already placed orders. I knew it was tested but when orders were placed I didn't knew that. I don't like this because of this disposable crap which I came to know about yesterday. This disposable crap thing makes it totally useless. We should have a system which launcher we can use for years not only for one time and than we have to dispose it.

USELESS?????
WHY ???
Because YOU dont like this???

I am sorry Zarvan but you are acting stupid again. Do you have any idea about anti tank rocket systems? You suggest that a system is useless because you THINK it is useless to get a single shot system? These are the kind of judgemental remarks and "verdicts" that you keep giving that i find impossible to agree with and quite stupid to be honest. Do you have any idea that the world famous

FGM-148 Javelin
American LAW72,
The Swedish AT4 (millions of examples produced and in use with over two dozen countries, some 300000 used by US where it is license produced),
the French APILAS (over 150000 examples produced and in service with over a dozen countries),
the new Israeli/Singaporean MARADOR,
The LATEST German Panzerfaust 3,
RPG 30 (introduced in 2012),
American M141
and last but not the least by ANY MEAN,
the British MBT-LAW (there new anit-tank weapon)

are ALL single shot weapons systems. All these over 50 user countries are not idiots only because YOU THINK A DISPOSABLE SYSTEM IS NOT WORTH IT.

EDIT: @Zarvan are you aware that the US army NEXT GENERATION Urban Assault Weapons system under development is also going to be a single shot system?

Please, do some research, look up for some information from actual internet articles and sites rather than "sources" before passing judgemental remarks and passing them as verdicts.

Let me ask you think, do you know why all these stupid countries opted for such a system? What advantage you think they went for when choosing these systems? You can look at the internet and will see that there are some 50-60 military services using these systems. So what can possibly be the advantage? ANY IDEA?

@The Sandman @The Eagle @Zaki @TheOccupiedKashmir @Dazzler @Basel @Bratva

 

[Zarvan]

Let me try?? AGAIN?


C90 is single shot system
There are two variants
C90-CR (M3)
C90-CS
Then there is a new development called "C90 - Reusable", this as the name suggest, is reusable.

ALCOTAN is a new product by same company. It is also disposable. It have more range and may be better penetrator and is replacing C90 system in military service.


One have to OPEN that site to learn about this. Some just rely on "sources" too much and spend more time on facebook looking for "authentic news". This is a pretty simple thing to google.





USELESS?????
WHY ???
Because YOU dont like this???

I am sorry Zarvan but you are acting stupid again. Do you have any idea about anti tank rocket systems? You suggest that a system is useless because you THINK it is useless to get a single shot system? These are the kind of judgemental remarks and "verdicts" that you keep giving that i find impossible to agree with and quite stupid to be honest. Do you have any idea that the world famous LAW72, The Swedish AT4 (millions of examples produced and in use with over two dozen countries, some 300000 used by US where it is license produced), the French APILAS (over 150000 examples produced and in service with over a dozen countries), the new Israeli/Singaporean MARADOR, The LATEST German Panzerfaust 3, Russian RPG 30 (introduced in 2012), American M141 and last but not the least by ANY MEAN, the British MBT-LAW (there new anit-tank weapon) are ALL single shot weapons systems. All these over 50 user countries are not idiots only because YOU THINK A DISPOSABLE SYSTEM IS NOT WORTH IT.

Please, do some research, look up for some information from actual internet articles and sites rather than "sources" before passing judgemental remarks and passing them as verdicts.

Let me ask you think, do you know why all these stupid countries opted for such a system? What advantage you think they went for when choosing these systems? You can look at the internet and will see that there are some 50-60 military services using these systems. So what can possibly be the advantage? ANY IDEA?

I have two major issues because of which I am objecting to this sytem

( a ) First because changing tube increases the cost massively if not double it.

(b) It also increases the weight which a soldier would have to carry both tubes and Ammunition will also increase the weight of it.

( c ) Third changing tube will also take more time than to just placing rocket into reusable launcher even saving few seconds can change the scene when you are in middle of war. Now if still think I am wrong please give your thoughts

 

[Arsalan]

I have two major issues because of which I am objecting to this sytem

( a ) First because changing tube increases the cost massively if not double it.

(b) It also increases the weight which a soldier would have to carry both tubes and Ammunition will also increase the weight of it.

( c ) Third changing tube will also take more time than to just placing rocket into reusable launcher even saving few seconds can change the scene when you are in middle of war. Now if still think I am wrong please give your thoughts

Sir what i am saying is it do not matters what you think! You cannot call a system crap or just an absolute miracle weapons based on what YOU FEEL about it. What do you have to say about those 50-60 countries that are using disposable systems? Have you gone through the long list of single shot weapons i gave you? most of them are 2005-2010 developments, modern by any standard. Then what can possibly be the advantage? have you though on THAT? or you think they were just being stupid?

 

[Path-Finder]

Let me try?? AGAIN?


C90 is single shot system
There are two variants
C90-CR (M3)
C90-CS
Then there is a new development called "C90 - Reusable", this as the name suggest, is reusable.

ALCOTAN is a new product by same company. It is also disposable. It have more range and may be better penetrator and is replacing C90 system in military service.


One have to OPEN that site to learn about this. Some just rely on "sources" too much and spend more time on facebook looking for "authentic news". This is a pretty simple thing to google.





USELESS?????
WHY ???
Because YOU dont like this???

I am sorry Zarvan but you are acting stupid again. Do you have any idea about anti tank rocket systems? You suggest that a system is useless because you THINK it is useless to get a single shot system? These are the kind of judgemental remarks and "verdicts" that you keep giving that i find impossible to agree with and quite stupid to be honest. Do you have any idea that the world famous LAW72, The Swedish AT4 (millions of examples produced and in use with over two dozen countries, some 300000 used by US where it is license produced), the French APILAS (over 150000 examples produced and in service with over a dozen countries), the new Israeli/Singaporean MARADOR, The LATEST German Panzerfaust 3, Russian RPG 30 (introduced in 2012), American M141 and last but not the least by ANY MEAN, the British MBT-LAW (there new anit-tank weapon) are ALL single shot weapons systems. All these over 50 user countries are not idiots only because YOU THINK A DISPOSABLE SYSTEM IS NOT WORTH IT.

Please, do some research, look up for some information from actual internet articles and sites rather than "sources" before passing judgemental remarks and passing them as verdicts.

Let me ask you think, do you know why all these stupid countries opted for such a system? What advantage you think they went for when choosing these systems? You can look at the internet and will see that there are some 50-60 military services using these systems. So what can possibly be the advantage? ANY IDEA?

Relax bro our Hazrat is an owner of 8bit thinking, His personal preference overrule everything. I am the one who convinced our Hazrat of the merits of Carl Gustav reusable system and he is now running with it.

I have two major issues because of which I am objecting to this sytem

( a ) First because changing tube increases the cost massively if not double it.

(b) It also increases the weight which a soldier would have to carry both tubes and Ammunition will also increase the weight of it.

( c ) Third changing tube will also take more time than to just placing rocket into reusable launcher even saving few seconds can change the scene when you are in middle of war. Now if still think I am wrong please give your thoughts

Hazrat do you know why these systems are put into protective cases? vs dumb rounds fired from a recoilless rifle? There has to be a reason why even Pakistan has opted for such system where so many nations have been using it for decades?

 

[Arsalan]

Relax bro our Hazrat is an owner of 8bit thinking, His personal preference overrule everything. I am the one convinced our Hazrat of the merits of Carl Gustav reusable system and he is now running with it.

This is ridiculous if i try to be as polite as i never have been my entire life!!
You don't want to hear what i think about it if i explain it being myself. Forum do not allows that.

NO ONE can or should be allowed to go on with statements like "I am thinking to replace RPG and have talked to @Horus about what systems we can go for but i think this Spanish system is absolutely shit so we are not buying that now"
SOME ONE PLEASE KILL ME!!

There are certain advantages that single shot systems offer. Rather than thinking about them and then analyzing the merits and demerits you just go on and make judgements because YOU THINK bad about somethings. An educated analysis may lead to a conclusion that reusable systems are better for us, fine with it, that will be an educated analysis after all. NOT A RANT!! (again being polite)

 

[Zarvan]

Relax bro our Hazrat is an owner of 8bit thinking, His personal preference overrule everything. I am the one who convinced our Hazrat of the merits of Carl Gustav reusable system and he is now running with it.


Hazrat do you know why these systems are put into protective cases? vs dumb rounds fired from a recoilless rifle? There has to be a reason why even Pakistan has opted for such system where so many nations have been using it for decades?

I know why they are in protective cases but still adding new tube and also the weapon increases the cost. Secondly changing both tube and ammunition also increases the time which in case of war can prove to be deadly. Thirdly it also increases weight which a soldier has to carry again making it more difficult for soldier to move. All of you are running around but not answering the questions I have raised

 

[Arsalan]

Just just remembered and have to mention it now, @Zarvan are you aware that the American NEXT GENERATION Urban Assault Weapon systems is going to be a disposable one too?


Again, i invite you to think, for once, think why all those nations are choosing for disposable systems? Are they are stupid and what you think was right or may be they do have found some advantage that will be interesting to know for you too.

 

[Zarvan]

Instead Pakistan should consider these

 

[Arsalan]

I know why they are in protective cases but still adding new tube and also the weapon increases the cost. Secondly changing both tube and ammunition also increases the time which in case of war can prove to be deadly. Thirdly it also increases weight which a soldier has to carry again making it more difficult for soldier to move. All of you are running around but not answering the questions I have raised

I have asked you a question too, i hope you will come forward and THINK about it for a change before passing judgements on weapon systems. Please do answer me why you think all those countries are choosing these systems and why all those idiots are investing millions of dollars in the development of the same?