• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

"Tanks" with Vertical Launch ATGMs

eshelon

unconventional solutions
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
75
Reaction score
13
No. 4. (and 5., 6. ...) = possible other concepts/projects. List is open.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,077
Reaction score
415
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
75
Reaction score
13
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
9,416
Reaction score
448
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
12,515
Reaction score
583
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
11,731
Reaction score
1,478
Vertical launch tubes are much better protected than external launchers.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,416
Reaction score
448
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
9,416
Reaction score
448
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
1,993
Reaction score
64
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
3,355
Reaction score
221
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
9,812
Reaction score
572
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
9,812
Reaction score
572
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
3
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
493
Reaction score
130
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
9,812
Reaction score
572
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,416
Reaction score
448

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,079
Reaction score
28
Israel's vehicle-mounted Spike NLOS is about as close as we have come to it IRL. While it is not VL, it can fire at unseen targets as it's FO guided with a imaging seeker in the nose.

The only "Tank" that it is in (IIRC) is the modded M60 Pereh.


 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
83
This is how I kind of expected the BAe Merlin mortar bomb to be deployed in preloaded tubes on the back of an afv.
It's kind of strange how BAe Merlin just seems to have faded away.....
Is Merlin still even in the British Army inventory?

Regards
Pioneer
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
641
Reaction score
139
The only "Tank" that it is in (IIRC) is the modded M60 Pereh.
AFAIK, the Pereh missile launchers were all based on Magach 5 hulls, ie M48, not M60.

And yes,the main gun was dummy, to help the Pereh look like the other then-in-service Magachim.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
85
Reaction score
8
LONGFOG only demonstrated 40 km payout with the bobbin (there were flight tests with an F-16A at Eglin in '98 or '99), but 100 km could be fairly easily achieved I guess. MRDEC/Redstone was only confident in quoting 75 km as being easy though.

It's not the same as FOG-M, though. FOG-M was an anti-aircraft missile from the 1980s with no serious relation to LONGFOG (it's not even the same company, FOG-M was Boeing who let it tank; EFOG-M was Hughes who did a fair job but it got killed by LOSAT; and LONGFOG was originally Williams, then Allison, who just made the turbojet while the Army did everything else in-house and LONGFOG definitely lasted longer than the others besides it wasn't killed until the oughties and turned into NETFIRES/NLOS-LS), besides the guidance method, the laptop/ground control station used, and possibly the general aerodynamic layout (assuming the cruciform missile had been procured instead of the Army's preferred stealth design). Everything else was new. As far as timelines go it's something like this:

1984-1990: FOG-M
1994-1998 (2002 as an ATD): EFOG-M
1990-1999: LONGFOG

So, FOG-M was a rocket with a very small Williams turbojet that flew maybe a dozen km to swat a helicopter out of the sky or sometimes a tank. Compared to LONGFOG it was about half the size and didn't even share the same launcher, since FOG-M was originally going to be mounted in an M113A3 and later they switched it to a M993/Bradley chassis, then the program died.EFOG-M and LONGFOG were going to be put on Humvees. So LONGFOG was big. Really big. About twice as big as FOG-M/EFOG-M, which were much closer in relation to each other than LONGFOG to either. Later, Williams tried to make a LONGFOG motor direct from the FOG-M/EFOG-M sustainer, but it was too weak and puny so Redstone went to Allison and asked them to make a turbojet instead and it was better, faster, and more fuel efficient.

As for LONGFOG, it's mostly a Koksan/Smerch buster.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
61
LONGFOG only demonstrated 40 km payout with the bobbin (there were flight tests with an F-16A at Eglin in '98 or '99), but 100 km could be fairly easily achieved I guess. MRDEC/Redstone was only confident in quoting 75 km as being easy though.

It's not the same as FOG-M, though. FOG-M was an anti-aircraft missile from the 1980s with no serious relation to LONGFOG (it's not even the same company, FOG-M was Boeing who let it tank; EFOG-M was Hughes who did a fair job but it got killed by LOSAT; and LONGFOG was originally Williams, then Allison, who just made the turbojet while the Army did everything else in-house and LONGFOG definitely lasted longer than the others besides it wasn't killed until the oughties and turned into NETFIRES/NLOS-LS), besides the guidance method, the laptop/ground control station used, and possibly the general aerodynamic layout (assuming the cruciform missile had been procured instead of the Army's preferred stealth design). Everything else was new. As far as timelines go it's something like this:

1984-1990: FOG-M
1994-1998 (2002 as an ATD): EFOG-M
1990-1999: LONGFOG

So, FOG-M was a rocket with a very small Williams turbojet that flew maybe a dozen km to swat a helicopter out of the sky or sometimes a tank. Compared to LONGFOG it was about half the size and didn't even share the same launcher, since FOG-M was originally going to be mounted in an M113A3 and later they switched it to a M993/Bradley chassis, then the program died.EFOG-M and LONGFOG were going to be put on Humvees. So LONGFOG was big. Really big. About twice as big as FOG-M/EFOG-M, which were much closer in relation to each other than LONGFOG to either. Later, Williams tried to make a LONGFOG motor direct from the FOG-M/EFOG-M sustainer, but it was too weak and puny so Redstone went to Allison and asked them to make a turbojet instead and it was better, faster, and more fuel efficient.

As for LONGFOG, it's mostly a Koksan/Smerch buster.
Are there any pics of M993/Bradley chassis FOG-M/EFOG-M?
 
Top