We started on this subject last week but events over took us. Time to get back on track. Personally I don't really see the advantage of cannon launched missiles over regular projectiles but there must be a need or they wouldn't be in service and in development.
Of all the missile systems, this one intrigues me the most. Its lighter than the others (I think) yet punches almost as hard. Quite honestly the Army really should be looking to purchase a few off the shelf for the anemic, maintenance intensive, problem child known as the Mobile Gun System.
The LAHAT appears to be the most widely used cannon launched missile...at least in the West. Besides Israel, Germany and India, Singapore is reportedly interested in procuring this weapon system.
The AT-11 is the threat system in this trio and in my estimation the weakest performer. Its slow, doesn't out range the main gun of the Russian or Chinese tanks its fired from and I suspect that it would have difficulty penetrating current armor setups.
Spudman said that Raytheon is developing a cannon launched missile for the US Army's Abrams but I can't find any info on their site indicating that its been put into production or is still in development. More later.
Of all the missile systems, this one intrigues me the most. Its lighter than the others (I think) yet punches almost as hard. Quite honestly the Army really should be looking to purchase a few off the shelf for the anemic, maintenance intensive, problem child known as the Mobile Gun System.
The LAHAT appears to be the most widely used cannon launched missile...at least in the West. Besides Israel, Germany and India, Singapore is reportedly interested in procuring this weapon system.
The AT-11 is the threat system in this trio and in my estimation the weakest performer. Its slow, doesn't out range the main gun of the Russian or Chinese tanks its fired from and I suspect that it would have difficulty penetrating current armor setups.
Spudman said that Raytheon is developing a cannon launched missile for the US Army's Abrams but I can't find any info on their site indicating that its been put into production or is still in development. More later.
One advantage used to be that you didn't need an expensive stabilization and fire control system. You could retrofit an ATGM into an older or less expensive tank to give it a measure of long-ranged anti-armor.
ReplyDeleteFalarick and AT-11 are similar performers and both use SACLOS guidance. They have marginal utility against the frontal armor of Western MBTs and newer Russian MBTs with ERA, but are effective against IFVs and older tanks.
LAHAT can use a lofted trajectory and SALH guidance, which means it can attack thinner top armor and can use off-board designation sources. However SALH guidance is easier to detect and disrupt.
For Western armies, I like LAHAT. It provides a useful range extension and relatively low upgrade costs. Its value lies as a long-ranged precision sniper weapon as much as an anti-tank munition, especially with the new multi-purpose warhead.
ok. i can see that. you have any info on that XM1111? i can't find out if its in production.
DeleteIf you read the WIKIPEDIA page on the XM1111 you would know that it was canceled with the FCS in 2009...
Deletelet me step in here. the info on whether the xm1111 still continues is murky at best. its not listed on the Raytheon site, the Wikipedia article is confusing and doesn't indicate whether the program survived and the Army Guide doesn't list it either.
Deletethe only reason why i haven't declared it dead is because i have not seen a kill order on it. but rumors of its survival so far are just that
No need for insults...i never did that ...i just point out the 1st article that a normal person using google would find...i would like that the Army and the USMC had a guided missile for the Abrams...
DeleteIf you re in the Army like you name sugests you should know how to treat people whit respect...i never engage people by calling them idiots...
The top attack mode of missiles is important against reactive armor. I know it's different but the Javelin has 2 shape charges - a smaller one to defeat reactive armor and a larger one to kill.
ReplyDeletePlus the top attack mode means you can engage helicopters.
You are missing the point missiles provide an overmatch capability ,new missile for M1 should have a range of cca 12.000m that is 4-6x times the range of an 120mm APFSDS round (most are only effective to cca 2000m some prototypes rounds could work up to 3500m ). Even the current Russian missiles outrange a typical APFSDS round ,anyting that has top attack capabilty will easily kill a tank as top armor might be just over 2 inches thick.
ReplyDeleteI light vehicles like IFVs Russians went for a great firepower package in BMP3 turret which combines .30cal MG,30mm cannon and a 100mm low pressure gun(more like howitzer),100mm is plenty big for a hard hitting HE round to support the infantry and a cannon launched rocket provides both anti tank and anti helicopter long range punch. External mounts like on bradley are much more exposed and harder to reload plus make the turret even larger and heavier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhkl2kR47Z4
Also imagine use of that missile when assaulting a beachead, BMD4 can use those missiles if stabilisation of the main gun wouldn'd be sufficent for accurate fire while waterborne .
DeleteBy the way patria AMV already built a prototype with BMP3 turret
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3931.html