In the past, the USA developed the Assault Breaker aviation complex, designed to deal with the advancing "hordes of Soviet tanks". Later, this project was abandoned for a variety of reasons. However, several years ago, work began on the issue of resuming such work. As part of the DARPA Assault Breaker II program, in the foreseeable future, a new system may be created to combat the ground forces of a potential enemy.
Old new idea
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the combat effectiveness of the armies of Russia and China, causing concern for the United States. Washington is developing various plans aimed at containing potential adversaries in a number of regions. The developments of the advanced research agency DARPA play an important role in this process.
The principle of operation of the Assault Breaker complex. Figure Researchgate.net
Several years ago, DARPA began redefining the concept previously proposed in the Assault Breaker project. It was planned to assess its prospects in the context of a modern armed conflict, make the necessary changes and, if there are real advantages, bring it to the stage of design and implementation in the troops.
The project, called Assault Breaker II, is still at the preliminary stage of development. The finished complex can be put into service no earlier than the end of the twenties - provided that the project is not closed earlier. Due to the early stage of work, most of the data has not yet been published, but the most general information is already known. Some of the data appeared in official reports, while other information was leaked to the media from unnamed sources.
On a new technical level
According to the available data, while the Assault Breaker II program provides for the use of old ideas implemented using current technologies and element base. At the same time, the goals and objectives, as well as the composition and principles of operation of the complex, do not change.
Recall that the Assault Breaker system in its original form included several main components. The first is an E-8C JSTARS detection and targeting aircraft with an AN / APY-3 airborne radar. It was planned to use B-52H bombers or other aircraft, as well as ground launchers, as weapons delivery vehicles. These platforms were supposed to use the Assault Breaker rocket carrying a cluster warhead with BLU-108 / B homing anti-tank submunitions. The latter were equipped with Skeet-type charges. The complex also included the appropriate means of communication and control.
The Assault Breaker system was to be used in the event of an open conflict and an attempt to break through the "tank avalanche" of the Warsaw Pact countries. When data on advancing tanks appeared, JSTARS aircraft were supposed to follow tank-hazardous areas, find enemy armored vehicles and issue target designations to B-52H bombers. Their task was to launch guided missiles in areas where enemy reserves were located.
Experienced rocket Martin Marietta T-16. Photo Designation-systems.net
According to the plans of the early eighties, several E-8C aircraft were supposed to support 12 bombers. Each B-52H could carry 20 Assault Breaker missiles. The missiles under development carried from 10 to 40 separate combat elements, each of which had 4 shaped charges. Thus, it was possible to simultaneously send 240 missiles with 2400-9600 submunitions - 9600-38400 shaped charges to the enemy ground forces.
It was assumed that even with a 50 percent probability of hitting a tank or armored vehicle, the B-52H squadron would inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy. Having lost reserves, the enemy will be forced to stop the offensive.
However, the Assault Breaker system was never created and put into service. In the late seventies, two missiles with cluster warheads were brought to testing - the T-16 from Martin Marietta and the T-22 from Vought. Both products performed poorly. Lack of real success and significant cost led to the closure of projects and the entire program as a whole. Work on the Assault Breaker stopped at the end of 1982 and never resumed.
Now DARPA is re-examining the concept of a closed project and trying to assess its prospects in a modern environment. Apparently, the main goal of current work is to determine the possibility of obtaining the desired work using modern technologies and component base. Perhaps the basic concept of the project will also undergo some changes. It can also be changed taking into account the progress of recent decades.
Targets and goals
The Assault Breaker system of the first version was created to protect against a full-scale offensive by the ATS ground forces, which have large quantities of armored vehicles. The current work on Assault Breaker II is also associated with a potential threat - as seen by the Pentagon. Recent reports mention that a new complex may be needed to defend against Russia and China.
Combat element BLU-108 / B (left) and shaped charge Skeet. Photo Globalsecurity.org
Last year, the US Department of Defense Science Council published a report, Study on Countering Anti-access Systems with Longer Range and Standoff Capabilities: Assault Breaker II, which provided data on the new project and its missions. Among other things, it presented two possible scenarios to justify the development of the Assault Breaker II system.
The first scenario considers a possible conflict in the Baltics. Comparing the forces of the parties, the authors of the report came to the conclusion about the quantitative superiority of the Russian army. Even taking into account the possibilities for the transfer of troops, NATO will not be able to react in time to a sudden Russian attack and create the required grouping. The potential of the Russian army in the context of Eastern Europe is shown by the exercises "West" of recent years.
China was also considered as a potential aggressor. He is able to protect coastal areas, as well as act at some distance from his territory. In particular, an attack on Taiwan is possible, which poses new tasks and requirements.
The threat posed by Russia and China is seen as a worthy justification for the creation of new weapons systems, including the relatively complex multi-component complex Assault Breaker II. The use of old ideas and new technologies should provide advantages in the fight against a potential adversary.
Plans and reality
While the Assault Breaker II program is at the stage of preliminary elaboration of the technical appearance. Subsequent work can take up to ten years. The real prospects of the program are still in question. In fact, the purpose of the current work is precisely to determine the very possibility of successfully creating a new rocket and all related systems.
BLU-108 / B / Skeet tests on decommissioned armored vehicles. Photo Globalsecurity.org
The available data on the Assault Breaker II program does not yet allow making accurate predictions about its future. Some information can be cause for optimism, while others can provoke sharp criticism. The real ratio of the positive and negative qualities of the future weapons system remains unknown.
The emergence of positive assessments is facilitated by the development of radio-electronic technologies and progress in missile technologies that have taken place in recent decades. The main problems of the first Assault Breaker project were associated with the lack of perfection of the missile carrying combat elements. A modern component base allows you to get rid of such problems. In addition, there is an opportunity to improve performance in comparison with the systems of the past.
The first Assault Breaker project was closed due to cost overruns amid a lack of progress. The second program may suffer the same fate. Despite the use of mastered products and technologies, the complex as a whole may turn out to be overly complex and expensive. Whether the engineers will be able to solve the cost problem is not yet clear.
At one time, the concept underlying the Assault Breaker complex seemed promising, effective and useful, but its implementation turned out to be extremely difficult and was not completed. As events in recent years have shown, the concept is still considered usable and is being re-examined with a view to resuming work. However, the real future of the project is still undecided. Time will tell whether the Pentagon will receive a new weapon to defend against the "tank hordes" of the enemy.
