Jump to content


Photo

Poland Chooses Patriot


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,808 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
  • 21,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 20 April 2018 - 1855 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
  • 10,258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 21 April 2018 - 0334 AM

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


  • 0

#45 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 April 2018 - 0440 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
  • 21,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 21 April 2018 - 0623 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

#47 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 23 April 2018 - 0518 AM

I should perhaps point out that the current Land Ceptor procurement is specifically to provide a replacement capability for the Rapier systems emplaced in the Falkland Islands. The truck chosen is the BA standard HX-77, and similar ranged systems in western service all have a similar configuration. Whether they're all wrong remains to be seen.
  • 0

#48 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 23 April 2018 - 0808 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.

 

It might not be physically dead immediately, but position will be quite known and SEAT package sent to deal with it specifically. Also, it loses any element of surprise.

If you want to delude yourself that you don't have to move after firing "because high tech" - go ahead, but that is IMO serious underestimation of the possible opponent (Russia), which is something NATO is notoriously famous for in the last god knows how many years, and it will be your funeral if shit ever gets real.


Edited by bojan, 23 April 2018 - 1239 PM.

  • 0

#49 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1228 PM

The ideal would be a highly dispersed and highly mobile system that was effectively networked and drew it targeting information from a wide range of sensors and platforms. CAMM L is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see launchers that were smaller and more mobile and a wider range of missiles with alternate seekers.
  • 0

#50 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1319 PM

I suggest  that you look at the French system then - they've been experimenting with national-scale networking of all AD assets and have trialled everything from Mistral up to ASTER 30, IIRC.


  • 0

#51 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,553 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1546 PM

The ideal would be a highly dispersed and highly mobile system that was effectively networked and drew it targeting information from a wide range of sensors and platforms. CAMM L is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see launchers that were smaller and more mobile and a wider range of missiles with alternate seekers.


The US army is working on something along those lines, surprisingly:

Multi-Mission Launcher

http://missiledefens...n-launcher-mml/
  • 0

#52 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 23 April 2018 - 1721 PM

 

The ideal would be a highly dispersed and highly mobile system that was effectively networked and drew it targeting information from a wide range of sensors and platforms. CAMM L is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see launchers that were smaller and more mobile and a wider range of missiles with alternate seekers.


The US army is working on something along those lines, surprisingly:

Multi-Mission Launcher

http://missiledefens...n-launcher-mml/

 

 

Yes, that looks really impressive and very versatile with the option of C-RAM and even long range anti tank missiles. What that system lacks, however is an active radar SAM with decent range.  CAMM-L can launch standard and ER active radar missiles (the latter with >45km range). The CAMM-L can be demounted from the MAN HX 8x8 truck, which is meant to free up trucks for other uses. How much of a good idea that might be in practice remains to be seen - I have my doubts. I see these two systems as potentially complementary.


  • 0

#53 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,553 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 24 April 2018 - 0808 AM

Perhaps in the future AMRAAM could be adapted to it.
  • 0

#54 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 24 April 2018 - 1242 PM

Perhaps in the future AMRAAM could be adapted to it.

 

Or put an active radar seeker on AIM-9X, which does fit?


  • 0

#55 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 24 April 2018 - 1412 PM

AIM-9X is rather small diameter and a custom radar seeker development would cost A LOT.

CAMM could be used.

 

AMRAAM-ER (AIM-120D seeker + ESSM body) is the obvious choice until ESSM Blk II production exceeds naval demand.

Old AMRAAM series (A, B ) munitions phased out of air force fighter use could be used, but they are not going to provide much of a protection umbrella. Their solid fuel rocket wasn't made to first climb AND  reach Mach3+.


Edited by lastdingo, 24 April 2018 - 1414 PM.

  • 0

#56 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 25 April 2018 - 1105 AM

"Old AMRAAM" would probably have life expired motors and warheads and unrepairable through obsolescence electronics.
A fairly serious case of Trigger's Broom/ Washington's Axe.

Edited by DB, 25 April 2018 - 1105 AM.

  • 0

#57 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 April 2018 - 1200 PM

"Old AMRAAM" would probably have life expired motors and warheads and unrepairable through obsolescence electronics.
A fairly serious case of Trigger's Broom/ Washington's Axe.

 

Maybe, but the opposing power wouldn't be sure how many of those one thousand missiles are still a threat and which aren't.

The military should first and foremost be about deterrence, not killing - and a free addition of uncertainty about additional firepower is welcome.


  • 0

#58 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 25 April 2018 - 1238 PM

In which case make an "X" model out of toilet tubes and tinfoil, just keep it secret.
  • 0

#59 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 25 April 2018 - 1403 PM

AIM-9X is rather small diameter and a custom radar seeker development would cost A LOT.

CAMM could be used.

 

AMRAAM-ER (AIM-120D seeker + ESSM body) is the obvious choice until ESSM Blk II production exceeds naval demand.

Old AMRAAM series (A, B ) munitions phased out of air force fighter use could be used, but they are not going to provide much of a protection umbrella. Their solid fuel rocket wasn't made to first climb AND  reach Mach3+.

 

Would either AMRAAM-ER or ESSM Block II fit the Multi-Mission Launcher?


  • 0

#60 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 April 2018 - 1450 PM

AMRAAM did fit on that SLAMRAAM/HUMRAAM launcher

http://www.deagel.co...a001164005.aspx

http://defence-blog....erformance.html

but the link

https://warisboring....ilitary-budget/

doesn't even mention AMRAAM. AMRAAM-ER and ESSM have more powerful initial thrust than AMRAAM and are much fatter.

 

AMRAAM-ER flight tests used the towed NASAMS launcher, not the flashy new high mobility launcher (~HUMRAAM)

https://www.defensen...st-flight-test/


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users