2 man track with 30 VLCs. Could provide anti armor and anti air coverage. While staying hidden and using remote target data.
2 man track with 30 VLCs. Could provide anti armor and anti air coverage. While staying hidden and using remote target data.
How does it acquire targets?
Lock On After Launch
what about artillery radars?
Brimstone is fire and forget, it has a radar.
You pick a location on the computer and point the missile in roughly the right direction and it will kill something.
still can't get over how advanced the signal processing must be for it to be able to distinguish between slightly different tank models in adverse conditions.
might be a lot of work for only 2 men.
If it is hidden, why does it need to be armored?
I'll do you one better, why does it need to be manned?
Ill do you one better, why does it even need to be mobile.
Well that's obvious, gotta be able to dodge arty fire.
Probably need to be bigger than a two man vehicle, unless they're literally just there as glorified taxi drivers to drive vehicle around and weapons employment is done via data link, in which case like others have pointed out, might as well make it unmanned.
Naval VLS cells are ~22-25 feet long. Any sort of land vehicle launched missiles need to lay flat on a flatbed truck like HIMARS and similar systems, vertical launch just doesn't make too much sense in a normal-sized ground vehicle because you need space for rocket motors or solid rocket boosters, and in either case you're going to need length for anything with decent performance characteristics. You can only get so much performance from such small missiles.
Brimstone, Hellfire, Spike NLOS etc. are all some 6ft long, but the range would be 10-20 miles at best.
A highly mobile, unmanned vehicle, that can carry 20+ Brimstones and fire them at armor formations 10-20 miles away, then cruise away from counter battery fire would be incredibly effective.
Well yeah, like I said small missiles are a thing and do decent work in their niche, BUT that niche is already filled, and I don't see that niche needing some dumb vertical launched armored vehicle packing 30 of them.
Maybe we could look at adapting SeaRAM for a truck-mounted system and call it LandRAM or something.
you mean C-RAM?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_rocket,_artillery,_and_mortar#U.S._Army:_Land-Based_Phalanx_Weapon_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_us_army_artillery_vehicles_system_uk/centurion_c-ram_land-based_weapon_system_phalanx_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html
No he means SeaRAM, the RIM-116 launcher not the fricking CIWS
Remove gun, install missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
Yes, they're both derivatives of Phalanx but SeaRAM isn't C-RAM, C-RAM is specifically the Phalanx CIWS adapted to land use, SeaRAM is a completely separate system that took the electronics off of the Phalanx CIWS system and mated it to a RIM-116 launcher.
Look at this pic, then look at
and
Explain to me how these aren't the same system just with the gun swapped for a missile pod.
Because it runs on entirely different software controls?
If you physically removed the gun and threw a missile pod underneath do you think magically it's going to just be able to shoot those missiles?
You're an actual moron if you honestly think it's a simple 10 minute job, or even a 1 day job.
It would take weeks or even months to make SeaRAM work on a land-based platform.
>Mount SeaRAM on a trailer instead of a boat
>Make sure the right firmware package is installed
Job done
>Now your army base is highly defended against sea-skimming AShM they're likely to encounter.
Not to mention SeaRam has zero capability against mortars and artillery shells.
Just because you could do something doesn't mean you should
>Just because you could do something doesn't mean you should
Tell that to
then
All I'm saying is that it's a completely self contained system, you can mount it on whatever the frick you want, as evidenced by the C-RAM trucks and trailers.
C-RAM itself took several months, it wasn't like they grabbed a phalanx off a boat and put it on a truck and turned it on.
US military asked for C-RAM development in May 2004. It didn't deploy until mid 2005, a year later. And that was an EXTREMELY fast and aggressive development cycle.
RIM 116 itself does though
> In 1998, a memorandum of understanding was signed by the defense departments of Germany and the United States to improve the system, so that it could also engage so-called "HAS", Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface targets. As developed, the HAS upgrade just required software modifications that can be applied to all Block 1 RAM missiles.
HAS does not include munitions used in indirect fire. They're talking about drones, helos, and small boats, not shells. Even if they were capable of knocking out artillery shells SeaRAM doesn't have an effective magazine size and is expensive to use missile like the 116 in that role
I never suggested it for shells, I suggested it for protecting mobile strategic assets from incoming missiles or helis/jets, all of which it's perfectly capable of.
No, the Phalanx CIWS uses the M61 20mm Vulcan
SeaRAM uses the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM)
>BUT that niche is already filled
by what exactly?
Most large armored vehicles CAN optionally mount Spike NLOS, Hellfire, etc.
I just don't see the need to shove 30 of them into a single target.
>armoured vehicles can already mount 1-2 nlos so no need to have one that can mount 30
are you for real?
Yes? In what situation is it worth putting 30+ into a single vehicle that can get fricked by a tank or single ATGM?
You don't put all your eggs in one basket.
If it's in danger of being hit by a tank or ATGM you're already using it wrong
The missiles that can be mounted on those vehicles are generally within range of advanced ATGMs, sure you can out-range them slightly maybe, but all it takes is one.
I mean that the enemy shouldn't even know where it is to shoot an ATGM at it. Though you're right, it'd probably make more sense to have multiple smaller UGVs each with 2-4 missiles and spread them out over a wider distance.
>if you mount 30 atgms on a platform - you have to fire all 30 at one target
what the frick is wrong with you. the whole point is having one vehicle (instead of 15) capable of taking care of an enemy tank company that might show up. if you can't see the advantage of having one vehicle do the job of 15 then idk how you figured out how to turn on a computer.
>it can be killed
so can anything you put on a battlefield, if your reconnaissance sucks compared to the enemy then you've already lost.
>what the frick is wrong with you. the whole point is having one vehicle (instead of 15) capable of taking care of an enemy tank company that might show up.
Dude, those 15 vehicles already exist. You are not reducing the number of vehicles from 15 to one; you are increasing it from 15 to 16 and risking one kill taking out 100% of your anti-tank capability.
>Maybe we could look at adapting SeaRAM for a truck-mounted system and call it LandRAM or something.
that's already a thing.
Tor has vertically launched missiles
this, most tanks have a pretty substantial depression built in.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brimstone-equipped-boxer-vehicle-variant-revealed/
I don't see why you'd want to incorporate AA into the same hull though
Imagine designating multiple tank companies as targets with drone/air/satellite recon elements - feeding the target info to a platoon of these vehicles and watching them get erased by shear volume of fire from behind cover. You could probably assign 3 missiles to each target for simultaneous contact and total overwhelming of any APS.
It would be pretty expensive though, and I bet a sufficiently powerful laser APS could buttfrick a significant number of incoming missiles
I know it's silly, but I'd like to see a modern TKS with about the same dimension. Armed with 50cal and 2 84mm launchers in weapons station that can rotate 200deg frontally.