Jump to content


Photo

Poland Chooses Patriot


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 08 April 2018 - 1725 PM

One minor difference would be that, in operation, at least with the British Army, MLRS launchers in general warfare hide until they are required and then move to (originally pre-surveyed pre GPS) locations to shoot, then return to their hides. That way counterbattery fire hits a location where the launcher no longer is. My understanding is that, unlike most Soviet long range SAMs, PATRIOT is not designed to shoot and scoot even when vehicle mounted. Therefore once launchers shoot they are likely to still be in situ when CB fire impacts. Also, MLRS, unlike area defence PATRIOT, are not entirely dependent on radar for target acquisition/designation - there are many other options with the radar generally being for fast reacting CB fire. Even that might be moot vs modern Russian SP tube and rocket artillery systems given their increasing capability to operate dispersed and shoot and scoot themselves and likely engagement ranges. 


  • 0

#42 Mad Mike

Mad Mike

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 358 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 1524 PM

One minor difference would be that, in operation, at least with the British Army, MLRS launchers in general warfare hide until they are required and then move to (originally pre-surveyed pre GPS) locations to shoot, then return to their hides. That way counterbattery fire hits a location where the launcher no longer is. My understanding is that, unlike most Soviet long range SAMs, PATRIOT is not designed to shoot and scoot even when vehicle mounted. Therefore once launchers shoot they are likely to still be in situ when CB fire impacts. Also, MLRS, unlike area defence PATRIOT, are not entirely dependent on radar for target acquisition/designation - there are many other options with the radar generally being for fast reacting CB fire. Even that might be moot vs modern Russian SP tube and rocket artillery systems given their increasing capability to operate dispersed and shoot and scoot themselves and likely engagement ranges. 

 

Hunting ducks isn't the same as field arty.

 

Whereas tube and launchers often find it necessary to displace and pull in the jacks as soon as the last round leaves the barrel- the employment guidelines of ADA- 3MI- mass, mix, mobility and integration generally stresses maximum amount of sensor/weapons coverage and in depth which often precludes pulling down the camo nets and antenna farms and hitching up the radar trailers to the trucks on fucking off to the next grid square as marked on everybody's BFT or GPS receiver. That and air defense aren't as concerned about counterbattery and believe one's own air and artillery asset should be sufficient to safeguard very expensive systems from the bad guy's time on target.


  • 0

#43 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted Yesterday, 06:55 PM

They might believe that here, but, since Soviet times, the SAM systems designed to protect their field armies have been designed for rapid setup and displacement. Some S-300 series systems can get into action in 5 minutes - I'd assume they could leave a site faster than that. I find that pretty impressive.


  • 0

#44 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted Today, 03:34 AM

Vs any more-less equal opponent if SAM does not move after firing, it is dead.


  • 0

#45 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted Today, 04:40 AM

Depends. The components of a battery/firing unit may be dispersed.

 

The missile launch may happen with external targeting input (datalink from fighter or AEW), so the battery's radars may still be uncompromised.

 

A single missile launcher that's expended minimum one of four missiles carried isn't exactly a desirable high value target as long as the battery is still capable of operation.

 

Furthermore, the launch may have been unobserved; especially missile launches at 50+ km distance may be untraceable.


  • 0

#46 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted Today, 06:23 AM

With Patriot it coukd be one of 4, 12 or 16 missiles. I'm not sure how far apart the launchers can be dispersed. Given that the Russians emphasise precision targeting of mass fires rather than Artillery delivered PGMs, counterfire would be likely to score more than one launcher. What I would like to see is a system like CAMM or it's ER variant that is not just sensor agnostic but has it's missiles in cheap individual launch tubes connected by redundant fiberoptics. The tubes could be carried in standard trucks that would not have a distinct visual signature. Instead we have mounted CAMM L on a massive and highly distinctive truck which will be very few in number. In a defensive scenario I see no reason why GMLRS and SPEAR 3 coukd not be deployed in a similar manner. GMLRs could be a six round pod on a cheap stand that coukd be trained by on soldier by lifting the trail and pulling it.
  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users