"Tanks" with Vertical Launch ATGMs

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,953
Reaction score
12
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
 

eshelon

unconventional solutions
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
Website
eshelon.wordpress.com
4. NetFires (early Future Combat Systems vision)
5. ?
- - - -
Jemiba, no turnable (more than 1-missile) launcher = lighter vehicle. Also quicker reaction on enemy vehicles spaced around (simultaneous attack).
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
Jemiba said:
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
Plus with US Army going to fewer soldiers you have an excess of vehicles with 'empty' back ends and no soldiers to fill them. Why not add vertical launch cells. Seems like a creative and efficient use for left over Bradley's, etc.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,396
Reaction score
16
bobbymike said:
Jemiba said:
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
Plus with US Army going to fewer soldiers you have an excess of vehicles with 'empty' back ends and no soldiers to fill them. Why not add vertical launch cells. Seems like a creative and efficient use for left over Bradley's, etc.
A Striker/Bradley with a back end full of antitank-sized "Quick Kill" missiles. . .
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,104
Reaction score
60
Vertical launch tubes are much better protected than external launchers.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Jemiba said:
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
Plus with US Army going to fewer soldiers you have an excess of vehicles with 'empty' back ends and no soldiers to fill them. Why not add vertical launch cells. Seems like a creative and efficient use for left over Bradley's, etc.
A Striker/Bradley with a back end full of antitank-sized "Quick Kill" missiles. . .
Especially if those missiles far 'outgun' the main gun of MBT.

I could imagine in the future where an enemy brigade on the other side of a ridgeline is being watched and targeted by a Fire Scout UAV, maybe even a high flying stealthy ISR platform (or similar system) that sends data back to a bunch of Strikers loaded with 10+ ATGMs. Minutes later a soldier in that brigade says, "Hey what are all those contrails coming over the ridgeline?"

Kind of like this ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC1Qob27sM
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
sferrin said:
AdKEM (From AIAA 92-2761)
1400 GEEEEEEESSSS!!! Awesome I love rocket tech. IMHO there seems to be so many solid rocket missile tech applications that the US could use to increase under armed platform firepower.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
3
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
AdKEM (From AIAA 92-2761)
1400 GEEEEEEESSSS!!! Awesome I love rocket tech. IMHO there seems to be so many solid rocket missile tech applications that the US could use to increase under armed platform firepower.
1400 Gs "axial acceleration". I think that means rolling acceleration as the missile rotates around it's axis. It has +50 Gs vertical and horizontal acceleration which is more than adequate.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
6
Axial acceleration refers to acceleration along the long axis of the projectile; if they meant rotation, they'd have said angular acceleration. The stated acceleration from near rest to Mach 6 (roughly 2000 m/sec) in 0.4 seconds implies an average acceleration during the motor burn of around 500 g. Peak acceleration might well be much higher.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
eshelon said:
5. M113+FOG-M (source: Popular Mechanics July 1985)
Regarding FOG-M, a brief history of the system in case study format can be found here (pdf pages 55-73).
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
moin1900 said:
Hi
Aero-Detroit Inc. MBT-70 concepts ?
http://www.mmowg.net/adi-usa-unpublished-old-tank-concepts/

MBT-70 concepts Turret and Casemate
http://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/5394455.html?page=1
Second link.
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
This is how I kind of expected the BAe Merlin mortar bomb to be deployed in preloaded tubes on the back of an afv.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
279
Reaction score
0
Another advantage of smart munitions is that you can use them for top-attack. Most AFVs have thin roofs ... much easier to penetrate than glacier plates.

As for the suggestion about multiple sub-munitions ... that is what you fire against infantry.
OTOH multiple top-attack, sub-munitions make it impossible to dig-in towed artillery. Even if the gun is well dig-in, stored ammo is still at risk from light (40mm) explosives.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
Thought the attached was in this thread already. H/t Kat Tsun. Originally via the Gur Khan Attacks blog.
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
With regards as to FOG-M (h/t RLBH):
RLBH said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?
The notional divisional FAADS battalion seems to have had three 'heavy' batteries with one platoon of six FOG-M launchers and two platoons of six ADATS Bradleys, one battery to accompany each brigade in the forward area, and one 'light' battery with three platoons of twelve Avengers for rear area defence.

Alongside that, there was to have been a divisional anti-tank battalion with 36 FOG-M launchers which could carry out air defence fires as a secondary mission. When this was being discussed, the FOG-M launcher for the heavy division looks to have had twelve cells on an MLRS-based chassis.
 
Top