M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

jsport said:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!XxCg!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/57945ae8-3b85-4ce4-84d8-106578484bb8_1598x588.png
Soft Kill will need to be hard kill DEW but the mast is ~correctView attachment 823175
Patent 11248879 — Soft Kill Laser Configuration for Ground Vehicle Threats
BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc
Click to expand...
I think what they're implying is a laser with a brighter spot than whatever the incoming designator uses, same pulse coding obviously, but it's showing as the brightest spot in the area as a decoy.

Same idea as the old Patriot radar constantly bouncing a pencil beam off the ground in front of the radar as a decoy for ARMs.

Nevermind that IMO some DIRCM where a laser blinds the seeker would be better.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think what they're implying is a laser with a brighter spot than whatever the incoming designator uses, same pulse coding obviously, but it's showing as the brightest spot in the area as a decoy.

Same idea as the old Patriot radar constantly bouncing a pencil beam off the ground in front of the radar as a decoy for ARMs.

Nevermind that IMO some DIRCM where a laser blinds the seeker would be better.
Click to expand...
Never disputed the "DICRM for tanks" thesis. That is exactly what patent states. The patent could be a side show capability while the argument remains the the same, a HE DEW in the form factor.
 
jsport said:
Never disputed the "DICRM for tanks" thesis. That is exactly what patent states. The patent could be a side show capability while the argument remains the the same, a HE DEW in the form factor.
Click to expand...
Right, but what I'm saying is that the illustration reminds me of the Patriot radar, so they're bouncing a laser off the ground to be a brighter spot than the one on the target tank.

While I think that DIRCM-for-tanks would be the better option.
 
Big_Zukini said:
What's the rationale for DIRCM on tanks? As far as I'm aware, laser guided munitions are not a significant threat.
Click to expand...
Those systems can also burn out any camera without proper EXPENSIVE protection.

And even the protected ones on the Javalin gets wonky forcing a miss.

You can see how it be useful to lolnope the cheap fpv drone everyidiot. bandies about.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right, but what I'm saying is that the illustration reminds me of the Patriot radar, so they're bouncing a laser off the ground to be a brighter spot than the one on the target tank.

While I think that DIRCM-for-tanks would be the better option.
Click to expand...
ok, understand. lasing the ground can be a whole other counter-mine/IED/on/off axis booby trap capability. This is category which not seamlessly emerge from the market. A gov would need to consolidate requirements and assume risk, Otherwise vehicles will continue to hunted even w/ passive mines.
 
Firefinder said:
Those systems can also burn out any camera without proper EXPENSIVE protection.

And even the protected ones on the Javalin gets wonky forcing a miss.

You can see how it be useful to lolnope the cheap fpv drone everyidiot. bandies about.
Click to expand...
Oh man, I accidentally said laser guided munitions there. I was thinking of thermals alone for some reason, but yeah any electro optics are vulnerable now that you mention it.
A good idea.
 
I'm willing to bet that the eventual in-service version will be closer to the upper picture than the lower . . .

cheers ,
Robin .
 
robunos said:
I'm willing to bet that the eventual in-service version will be closer to the upper picture than the lower . . .

cheers ,
Robin .
Click to expand...
Then it would be a mildly modified M1A2 without major improvements, hardly worth the investment although admittedly that's exactly what I'd expect from the US.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom