What’s stopping Lockheed from making pods filled with surface to air missiles. Just link a field radar to the launching unit and boom you have 6 medium ranged SAMs
Whats stopping Lockheed from making pods filled with surface to air missiles.
What’s stopping Lockheed from making pods filled with surface to air missiles. Just link a field radar to the launching unit and boom you have 6 medium ranged SAMs
It's the fricking radar that's expensive, numpty
The radars already exist. You can link multiple systems to a single radar
Not really. A competent surveillance radar is between 10-20m
Missiles are easily a million a pop.
>competent
pfft
>just have this single point of failure!
>it's not like HARMs have existed for half a fricking century or anything!
>HIMARS linked to a radar is the only system vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles
who said anything about HIMARS? you tards have got HIMARS on the brain.
Launchers are the least of the problems with SAMs right now. This whole thread is barking up the wrong bloody forest.
>who said anything about HIMARS? you tards have got HIMARS on the brain.
What's OP's picture of, anon?
All the countries with advanced a-a spent decades going in the opposite direction. One look at Iraq lets you know how moronic this idea is.
First off, if you don't conceal it well, a satellite will see it and it's game over. But the second issue is: what happens when this battery eventually has to fire? Right now the time from discovery to a missile attack is in the tens of minutes, and the main limiting factor to both sides' bombing and droning efficiency is lack of intel about known targets.
>inb4 patriot batteries in Kiev.
Literally half of US mil industry is replacing ukrainian missile stocks in real time. This is a realistic strategy when 50% of the world's GDP is fighting a country with 1.5% of the GDP, but it's not a viable strategy for a long-term hot war.
>Just link a field radar
So basically making a new AA system is as easy as developing a new AA system?
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/test/article/16720778/lockheed-martins-himars-launcher-fires-air-defense-missile
DALLAS, 26 March 2009. A Lockheed Martin High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launcher fired two Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) during a U.S. Army "common launcher" feasibility demonstration at White Sands Missile Range, NM. Representatives from U.S. Army and industry conducted the "proof of concept" firing to examine the viability of firing an air defense missile from the currently-fielded HIMARS, says a representative.
It's doable. The problem is that Lockheed will NEVER EVER allow for cheap solutions when they can have super duper solution costing billions in RD every year.
This right here.
And it’s not all Lockheed’s fault. The military is just as hidebound.
Say Lockheed wanted to do what you postulate, and turn a regular 40’ trailer into a SAM launcher on the cheap so they could make and sell a hundred thousand units and millions of missile cassettes to go with them.
Before they even set a pixel to a screen, every little pissant command in the Army, the Air Force and the fricking Navy would demand that the design meet their own criteria.
Research the headaches encountered in developing the Bradley and the F-16. Had it not been for someone fighting like hell to keep the original concept true to form, the F-16 would have ended up as a multi-role carrier-capable “Swiss army knife” creation that would have been canceled for being preposterous bullshit.
Why not just develop superior systems as private ventures and present them to GAO as fait accompli? Worked for Falcon 9
Because they’re expensive to develop and test. Nobody’s going out on a limb like that without a Fat Government Contract to make it worth their while.
>The MIC would never produce a low-cost solution like sticking a launch rail on the back of a off-the-shelf truck chassis.
I just love that someone even considered this enough to put that together.
Launchers aren't the expensive part of, e.g. Patriot and it's easier and simpler to make vehicles just for PAC-3s instead of having them share launchers with totally unrelated systems. What do you think you'd even get out of it?
Until 2019 we had signed a treaty that forbade long range missiles from being developed/used, Russia ignored the treaty so the US complained from 2014-18 before finally saying frick it in 2019, since 2019 we've been riding through development of several long range missile programs.
Pic related is Typhon which is one of the simplest ones where they're taking MK41 naval VLS cells and strapping them to a truck paired with some radars and fire control systems.
>~1000 mile tomahawk
>mid-range
Gotta love it when the Army takes a Navy weapon system and puts it on a truck.
You are correct, which is why there are Rapid Capabilities offices popping up across the DOD (namely Army RCCTO in this case) to get good ideas rapidly prototyped and a limited set in the field ahead of the glacial procurement process.
Remember the Sergeant York Air Defense weapon debacle?
The Army tried to back engineer a Shilka and got a track that ignored the drone and shot up the shit-house ventilator fan.
Everyone cites Sergeant York but forgets DIVADS
>DIVAD
Remember what they took from you.
Rotors present a rapid series of tracks with an angular velocity that looks exactly like a fast inbound target. Navy helo pilots shit their pants often when the CIWS is left in Air-Ready and they are making a landing approach. Its like ED-209 jumping up and telling you that you have two seconds to comply.
I always named my character Rey Van to make the big dramatic reveal even funnier
>Gotta love it when the Army takes a Navy weapon system and puts it on a truck.
That's literally what
is, but without the moronic over-engineered launcher.
>Russia ignored the treaty
Which they only did because Bush reneged on the ABM treaty in 2002. Turnabout is fair play.
>Turnabout is fair play
Is that why Russia screams hysterically about supporting Ukraine despite they themselves having set that precedent in Vietnam and Korea?
>Withdrawing from a bilateral treaty.
>Violating a bilateral treaty and lying about it for years.
Not the same thing.
Says you
says US foreign policy by virtue of actions taken.
>Article XV of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
>Section 2:
>Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty.
The Treaty itself literally says the United States could withdraw of its own accord.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty contains identical language. Now post the Article and Clause that allowed Russia to lie about violating the terms of the treaty.
>that allowed Russia to lie about violating the terms of the treaty.
I mean, objectively it was allowed. You can't deny it, Russia was able to develop, test, and deploy a missile that broke the treaty, all without any real consequences, even today the US still doesn't have an equivalent missile (though they will soon with PrSM
)
Sure the treaty didn't expressly allow this in writing, but the fact it happened, and the fact the US and the rest of the world didn't do anything about it (besides dropping out of the treaty that was already being ignored).
If they did that, then how would they charge the U.S taxpayer 6 gorillion dollars per unit?
The military has to ask for it. Nobody just invents weapons. The military decides what they need and then corporations build prototypes and then military picks one.
Yes, that's how it works until US officially pulls out of it. Not everyone is as rotten and decrepid liar trash as russia.
Just a friendly reminder that Russians always project
With so much practice at it, you'd think they would be a bit better at projecting military force
lel
The US had been developing PrSM with a 499km maximum range, when the US dropped out of the treaty they changed the development goal from that 499km range to 500km+.
Russia at the time had already developed, and deployed the Iskander missile which the US claims (and the rest of the world has at this point verified) can go beyond the 500km limit of the treaty.
So yes, Russia had clearly broken the treaty and the US clearly hasn't, seeing as PrSM still hasn't been deployed the US clearly hadnt been working on it in secret.
PrSM has reached IOC. The first limited batch of 110 has already been delivered
Nope.
First order of 26 from 2021 is set to be delivered in September 2023.
The 110 ordered in FY24 won't get delivered for several years.
Gotta love US bureaucracy for something... we can see not only how many and when they have to deliver them by, but also the cost per missile by batch.
>The first limited batch of 110 has already been delivered
Why do you "people" say shit like this without a source? All of this shit is public information you can look up, and see PrSM delivery dates and order quantities.
Because most people are too lazy to look things up
Russia spent 5-10 years lying about breaking the treaty, the US said frick this treaty then and THEN they started developing longer range missiles.
One of these things is not like the other, and if you think Russia was being "smart" by lying about the weapon capabilities to get around the treaty, then you're probably just a slavshit moron, just like the Russians that thought going around the treaty was a good idea in the first place.
>he doesn't understand how bilateral treaties between states work
>doesn't understand how bilateral treaties between states work
anon, they don't understand how an agreement works.
They think an agreement is just a way to stop people doing what they wanted while you ignore it and do whatever you were going to do anyway.
To them, lying is a kind of super-power that bends people to your will. Not a losing strategy that leaves you untrusted and alone with no true allies, a reputation in tatters and ignored whenever you speak.
I am a glow Black person and I know we didn't break the treaty, you can think whatever you want as you already lead your life founded on opinions without any supporting evidence.
You're worthless scum that uses unspecified glowBlack folk to make excuses for your shitty and decrepit way of life.
https://defense-update.com/20090325_himars_amraam.html
>Just link a field radar to the launching
Do ukies have these links?
I don't think it would matter too much, AMRAAM range when fired from the ground isn't amazing since it has to use a bunch of fuel gaining altitude and speed. And most Russian aircraft are staying well outside of NATO A2A missile range.
>NATO A2A missile
AIR
TO
AIR
AMRAAM is an air to air missile, and when it is employed as a ground based anti-air missile it's range is even more pathetic.
>I don't think it would matter too much, AMRAAM range when fired from the ground isn't amazing since it has to use a bunch of fuel gaining altitude and speed
This. SAMs and A2A missiles are built differently for a reason, one has to fight against gravity and the other starts off with a speed-boost and altitude.
I think we'd all like to see some good A2A. Maybe when the Vipers arrive.
so just a patriot system with extra steps
PAC3
the former ones use different methods of guidance
Argies rigged something like that with the last exocets in the falklands
it wasn't really good
there are dedicated systems for a reason
What's nu k and why is the use of it always su a good indicator if a person is moronic? Is it like Misc lingo? Like obsession with trannies living rent free?
You mean the Multi-Mission Launcher?
ask habitual line crosser.
Systems like that generally aren't particularly modular. Unless it's been specifically designed for it, and has had the requisite software written, you can't just grab random radar unit and attach it to random system. Yet. They're working on that.
The percentage of glowBlack folk on /k/ is just as high as /misc/ except here they're bros.
>He can't load all missiles simultaneously
NGMI
That's exactly what a HIMARS does, moron. All you have to do is drop one pod and hook up the next one.
Money.
Only money
Why not make a cannister for HIMARS filled with SM-6s, pair it with a radar and command center somewhere within 30km and use them as dispersed SAMs?