Jump to content


Photo

What Am I Missing Here?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#41 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 November 2017 - 0352 AM

The old LAW doesn't have sufficient effective range. You can forget about it past 100...200 metres, depending on circumstances.


  • 0

#42 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 November 2017 - 0400 AM

 

"Enforcer" is merely MBDA catching up with the Israeli Spike SR years late with flashier marketing.

Nope, that's MMP.

 

 

 

MMP ~ Spike MR

Enforcer ~ Spike SR

 

Look up Spike SR. You may not be familiar with it. It's but a munition - there's no CLU.

 


  • 0

#43 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 14 November 2017 - 0556 AM

The old LAW doesn't have sufficient effective range. You can forget about it past 100...200 metres, depending on circumstances.

 

I see,

 

Would it be possible to upgrade the old design with new tech to achieve your aim ? The LAW always seemed a lightweight, compact weapon with a heavy punch to me, but i might be mistaken.

 

Inhapi


  • 0

#44 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 November 2017 - 1002 AM

There are several mini missile projects that would provide a better starting point. Reduce them to predicted line of sight mode with a couple hundred metres effective range, add a cost-effective HEDP warhead (no tantalum liner).


  • 0

#45 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,191 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2017 - 2136 PM

We have plenty of solutions for killing MBTs, even in defilade to help avoid exposing your position.


https://www.liveleak...=d5e_1479154455



Need something cheap, small, and guided for that improvised up-armored VBIED rolling in, with an emphasis on small (M72 / 62mm BUR), FAST to employ, and with some sort of guidance. Predictive line of sight is nice, but they aren't moving in a predictable manner.

What would be the cheapest guidance source for putting a red dot on target and having the missile hit that?  SACLOS / Beam Riding?


  • 0

#46 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 16 November 2017 - 0100 AM

We have plenty of solutions for killing MBTs, even in defilade to help avoid exposing your position.


https://www.liveleak...=d5e_1479154455



Need something cheap, small, and guided for that improvised up-armored VBIED rolling in, with an emphasis on small (M72 / 62mm BUR), FAST to employ, and with some sort of guidance. Predictive line of sight is nice, but they aren't moving in a predictable manner.

What would be the cheapest guidance source for putting a red dot on target and having the missile hit that?  SACLOS / Beam Riding?

VBIED is coming to you, so you can plink it as 500 meters or less, which means even an unguided or inertial guided munition has a good chance of hitting.


  • 0

#47 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1010 AM

Beam riding is cheapest. 


  • 0

#48 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1209 PM

No, it's not. Modern accelerometer chips are so dirt cheap that they enabled quadrotor drone toys produced for less than 10 $.

Beam riders trigger laser warning receivers because the laser has to be on the target all the time if the time of flight is short. This requires furthermore a launcher with a real sight, grip, battery, a nontrivial laser subsystem, interface for code input etc.

 

Predicted line of sight requires nothing but a rocket with dirt cheap electronics and an internal battery, a launch device as simple as with M72 + a key for activating the motion logging prior to launch.


  • 0

#49 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1239 PM

Beam riding requires you to keep the sight on the target whilst the enemy does stuff to try to stop you hitting him. Even without trying, in gently rolling terrain like that in which I live, a tank is going to be rolling in and out of view quite often. Also, even if only slightly in defilade, which is the case in most terrain, the missile is going to have to either hit the tank directly in the turret or pass over it - there are ways around the latter as in the case of BILL, but a missile impacting at a steep angle is quite easy to achieve with imaging guidance. Imaging guidance can also be quite cheap - look at the DAMASK initiative a few years back that used an imaging sensor off a then production car.. 

 

The predicted line of sight approach was brought in with the Israeli Picket LAW of over 30 years ago. It is currently used by the N-LAW used by Finland, Sweden and the UK.


  • 0

#50 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1342 PM

Yeah, I wrote a bit about Picket.

http://defense-and-f...irect-fire.html

 

I hardly ever see info on it anywhere - only remember two Jane's sources featuring it (and one website that used to copy Jane's contents featured it as well).


  • 0

#51 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1405 PM

at least one user of NLAW is not that thrilled about it any more. yes, it´s a good weapon , but has tactical limitations, range and minor  reliability issues,  relatively easy to miss target on top-attack mode.

and  20-25 000 EUR per shot


  • 0

#52 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,353 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1437 PM

No, it's not. Modern accelerometer chips are so dirt cheap that they enabled quadrotor drone toys produced for less than 10 $.

Beam riders trigger laser warning receivers because the laser has to be on the target all the time if the time of flight is short. This requires furthermore a launcher with a real sight, grip, battery, a nontrivial laser subsystem, interface for code input etc.

 

Predicted line of sight requires nothing but a rocket with dirt cheap electronics and an internal battery, a launch device as simple as with M72 + a key for activating the motion logging prior to launch.

Beam riders don't trigger LWR almost at all. Radiation intensity is FAR lower that with SALH designator.


  • 0

#53 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1456 PM

A laser that can be detected by the tail receivers can be detected by a laser warnjng receiver.

Keep in mind that LBR requires laser cones, so the LWR doesn't need to sense reflections off the tank itself or weak laser signals scattered by atmospheric irregularities - it can sense the laser directly.

 

Maybe some LWRs would fail, but one shouldn't expect it until that specific LWR type was shown to fail against LBR under combat conditions.


  • 0

#54 Blunt Eversmoke

Blunt Eversmoke

    despicable hypocrite with nothing to crow for

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sellin them conre durgs to kid,s in a school near YOU, sport! I culd go onand on!!
  • Interests:Trollin'. Get'n paided. No bonuses, tho.

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1544 PM

 

@Chris; He meant that AT weapons have to be light AND have good range.
 
Spike SR is a most interesting weapon, often overlooked. It needs no launcher, weighs as much as a Panzerfaust 3, can do IIR-guided direct attack  over 1,800 m and needs no launcher. Should be fine for BMP plinking on open fields.
ERYX is impressive in its range class, too. Short time of flight makes me wonder if the SACLOS vulnerability to IR jammers matters at all in this case, weight similar to Panzerfaust 3 but much better warhead and accuracy.
 
------------------------
Generally, I suppose one should draw a line between MBT-ish threats on the one side and BMP/BTR threats on the other (the usual BMP and BTR, not the super-uncommon heavy ones).
 
BMP-2 don't require a bigger warhead than 50-76 mm, depending on warhead tech, impact location, impact angle and whatever is outside of the BMP-2's main armour plate there.
Light munitions of less than 3 kg can be developed to be effective against a moving BMP-2 at ~500 metres. That's something that we're missing.
 
You need heavier munitions than infantry could carry all the time for anti-MBT work.
I suppose infantry should have short range anti-MBT munitions in its vehicles (Pzf3IT-600, for example).
Long-range anti-MBT work is either about delusions or about heavy vehicle-mounted weapons and munitions. Ideally long rod penetrators by 120-125 (soon maybe 130 mm) calibre or CKEM-ish.
Portable ATGMs of all kinds can be defeated all-too often by competent, alert and well-equipped crews (neither Turks nor Saudis are a proper benchmark). Especially the rapid multispectral obscuration is most impressive - and cheap!
 
GALIX was good

(sorry for the obnoxious narrator)
 
but this one looks even better:

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu7daHh7-PA
 
So the gaps that I see are
 
(1) ultralight anti-BMP munition with 400-600 m effective range (3 kg and predicted line of sight autopilot), carried by every infantry fire team in all combat situations
(2) anti-tank HVMs with long rod penetrator and inertial navigation autopilot for predicted point of impact flight, mounted on vehicles
 
Instead, there are lots of 5+ km ATGM systems; missiles for ranges at which detection and identification of targets is most unlikely unless you want to fight in Russia, Ukraine or Arabian deserts.
There are also way too many WW2 bazooka-inspired 'dumb' "anti-tank" weapons and munitions with horrible inaccuracy and marginal effective ranges.
The modern Carl Gustavs are fine, but they're man-portable infantry guns, not anti-MBT weapons.
 

 

Another strange omission is the US Army's apparent disinterest in deploying a modern hand held anti tank weapon along the lines of NLAW or Pzf3

There was the FGM-172 "Predator" SRAW, a top-attack weapon that worked much like the NLAW but they stopped procuring it years ago from what I've read.

 

Those were few, reworked into HE munitions and by now I suppose many if not most were expended.

I raised this on another thread, but for plinking IFV etc. even an unguided high velocity rocket would do. A ~ 73 mm or even 57 mm rocket with a long rod launched out of an SPG-9 or similar will be more then enough. Then you also have a weapon useful for general support using HE.

 

 

Thing is, the Soviets almost had this with the limited-series RPG-16 meant for paratroopers. With a long 58 mm projo burning more powerful both rocket motor and starter charges than what the RPG-7 rounds have, it had an effective range of up to 800 meters.

I don't understand to this day how, its production going from the 70s to the early 90s, nobody bothered to introduce an over-caliber round for the harder targets, trading in range for penetration while still keeping the possibility to launch the farther-reaching 58 mm projectiles against lighter AFVs and emplacements.

 

Of course, NATO countries almost have it with the CG. I read of an over-caliber warhead being in the works (and offered?) for quite some time.

 

 

 

Beam riding requires you to keep the sight on the target whilst the enemy does stuff to try to stop you hitting him. Even without trying, in gently rolling terrain like that in which I live, a tank is going to be rolling in and out of view quite often. Also, even if only slightly in defilade, which is the case in most terrain, the missile is going to have to either hit the tank directly in the turret or pass over it - there are ways around the latter as in the case of BILL, but a missile impacting at a steep angle is quite easy to achieve with imaging guidance. Imaging guidance can also be quite cheap - look at the DAMASK initiative a few years back that used an imaging sensor off a then production car.. 

 

The predicted line of sight approach was brought in with the Israeli Picket LAW of over 30 years ago. It is currently used by the N-LAW used by Finland, Sweden and the UK.

 

I wasn't able to find any info on this DAMASK initiative, where to read up on that?


  • 0

#55 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1553 PM

RPG-16 had the same problem as RPG-7; wind from the side turns the projectile towards the side the wind is coming from (fins offer much resistance, but there's little mass that far back), then the sustainer rocket propels the rocket into that wrong direction.

 

RPG-type weapons are terribly difficult to aim past  ~150 m in windy conditions (even against tank-sized targets) and the huge drop makes aiming for the correct range near-impossible past ~300 m without a laser rangefinder.


  • 0

#56 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,191 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1759 PM

IMO a 40mm Pike missile scaled up to M72 LAW sized would be just the ticket.

Think Bur launcher for laser homing, but if Beam riding is significantly cheaper then a disposable M72 type launcher would be fine too. Doesn't have to be fancy.

Anything bigger than it can deal with warrants a javelin, spike, or the plethora of other bulkier weapons available for that purpose.
  • 0

#57 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1810 PM

No, it's not. Modern accelerometer chips are so dirt cheap that they enabled quadrotor drone toys produced for less than 10 $....

Not the ones that can handle -/+ 50deg or handle accelerations involved with the missiles.


  • 0

#58 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 November 2017 - 2003 PM

The question posed was which is cheapest, not which guidance system Chris would buy. We already know the answer to the latter.

 

I am reminded that the crappiness of SACLOS and beam rider missiles has not reduced their impact in the recent conflicts throughout the middle east, despite many of them being 'obsolete' legacy systems. An ATGW or three in hand is better than one elsewhere. I guess we should not take too much away from these conflicts since they are between 'monkey model' militaries and non-state actors. 


  • 0

#59 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 November 2017 - 0302 AM

 

No, it's not. Modern accelerometer chips are so dirt cheap that they enabled quadrotor drone toys produced for less than 10 $....

Not the ones that can handle -/+ 50deg or handle accelerations involved with the missiles.

 

 

10,000 g survivable

-40°C...+85°C temperature rnage

ridiculously compact

5.50 USD listed price

http://www.st.com/en...h3lis331dl.html

 

That's not necessarily enough for 155 mm shells, but it's easily enough for a PLOS bazooka-type weapon.


  • 0

#60 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,353 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2017 - 0438 AM

A laser that can be detected by the tail receivers can be detected by a laser warnjng receiver.
Keep in mind that LBR requires laser cones, so the LWR doesn't need to sense reflections off the tank itself or weak laser signals scattered by atmospheric irregularities - it can sense the laser directly.
 
Maybe some LWRs would fail, but one shouldn't expect it until that specific LWR type was shown to fail against LBR under combat conditions.

Not exactly. Beam-rider should catch laser cone from known direction. SALH should catch reflection of laser dot at much bigger distance and in much wider area. Emitting power differs greatly. For LWR beam-rider is closer to natural IR pollution that to direct radiating at AFV.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users