Could a SAM launcher be abused as an effective anti-tank launcher?
>pic related, e.g. a FIM-92 used on a modern combat tank like a T-90, etc.
Also unconventional warfare thread.
>Could a SAM launcher be abused as an effective anti-tank launcher?
Not viable, the warhead MANPADS aren't resigned for armor penetration -- at least not the stinger warhead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead). Other MANPADS, like the speedy gonzalez of MANPADS, the Starstreak, might be able to penetrate some armor given their ridiculous maximum velocity and tungsten construction. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_%28missile%29). I'm not sure if the targeting systems would cooperate when attempting to target something on the ground.
surface to air missiles explode in a different way than anti tank missiles.
anti aircraft ordnance gets near the aircraft and explodes radially propelling shrapnel in all directions in an attempt to damage the plane.
anti tank weapons explode in a direction specific focused blast to better penetrate armor
>I'm not sure if the targeting systems would cooperate when attempting to target something on the ground.
Starstreak is laser-beam riding. You can point it at anything and it'll fly towards it.
The issue with using it against ground targets is that the darts spread a few meters apart so they could impact terrain etc. along the missile course if you are aiming in proximity to the ground.
The UK & Thales developed the Martlet a/k/a Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) as a better anti-surface variant of Starstreak.
No, absolutely not in any way.
Anti tank warheads are large and specifically designed to penetrate steel.
Anti aircraft warheads are very small and detonate in proximity to the aircraft, with the intents of blowing enough shrapnel into key components like rotors, engines, fuel tanks, crew, ext... To bring it out of the sky
>Could a SAM launcher be abused as an effective anti-tank launcher?
Do you think Fragmentation grenades could be abused as an effective AT weapon?
That is the level of retard you are posting
The charge of the stinger is only roughly 1 & 1/4 larger than a 40mm HE grenade and has far worst anti light vehicle characteristics than 40mm HEDP grenades
For what purpose would you want Frag/HEAT in 1 small warhead?
HEAD requires a decent effective diameter to form an accelerate the penetrator and you stop any forward proliferation fragmentation and would have a hilariously small fragment mass
You would literally make a warhead that tried to do both and could do neither
>Assuming you can hit them.
This is the issue, VS AA you have no need of an EFP as the aircraft has no armor to begin with and forming a penetrator means you cannot proliferate fragments forward and the speeds involved mean the penetrator would pass the cone mass focal point and merely spray hot copper with less force than shrapnel
In the same vein, would it be possible to design a man fired surface to air launcher that can also fire a different missile specialized for anti-armor? If it can lock onto a plane, it can lock onto a tank, right? Can think of quite a few logistical benefits from that.
Yes different missiles would be possible, the main issue is making a reliable seeker method for AA, that is also accurate enough to pick the weak points in armor
EG: IR is effective vs Aircraft as the IR Bloom is a key part, the engine. on a than the IR bloom projects upward from the rear of the tank, effective if fired from an elevate position at the rear, but will lead other aspects into the mass of armor that is the turret.
SACLOS: Effective VS armor as it has feedback and visuals to the launcher but means the launcher must be able to out fly a fighter pilot evasively
Beam riding is a best of both worlds master of none, less effective vs Armor than SACLOS, less effective vs Air (When not guided by machines due to humans innate instability)
The real answer is no, in man portable systems there is no way around the issue that has been found, on vehicles where weight is less of an issue we have systems like ADATS that can do both to a reasonable degree
So, if I have a decent effective diameter, and accelerate the penetrator, would you give me HEAD, and then I forward proliferate alot of fragmentation mass all over you?
Is that what you're telling me?
>he says "SAM launcher"
>bunch of posts about missiles
Here's what you do. Take the body of the missile, strip out the warhead, guidance, seeker head, all that shit. Replace with PG7 warhead. You now have an unguided HEAT rocket that's fired out of the FIM-92.
So yes, it absolutely is possible. Practical? Nah, not really. Maybe if you designed a dual purpose launcher from the ground up.
>gets FIM-92 missile
>strips out the GCM, coolant bottle, seeker head, warhead, everything but the motor and fuselage
>replaces with a HEAT warhead
>some retard comes along "HAHA YEAH KISS UR FINGERS AND FACE AND SHOULDERS GOODBYE"
Rethink your post and get back to me.
>No, the launcher would bend when if you hit hard enough doing no damage at all.
do you not understand what he is saying you fucking moron? Stingers get blown out of the launcher and then the rocket kicks in multiple feet away from the operator.
Replacing with an unguided HEAT missile would cause the backblast to brun 90% of your fucking body.
holy shit you are stupid.
>somehow makes everything fire because sorcery
You said it yourself, the WARHEAD is different you dipshit. The rocket is the fucking same rocket, it still has a booster to eject the rocket before the motor fires. Reading comprehension: use it.
The same way you propel it every other way? Do you not know how a FIM-92 works? You aim at blank sky, get tone, aim at aircraft, unlock seeker and fire. Throw the BCU away and reload. You can absolutely dumb-fire the regular missiles and yes they will absolutely fly straight into a building or a camel or whatever the hell you're aiming at. They'll squirrel around a bit in the air but they will absolutely go in the general direction of where you're pointing them. The FIM-43 did this shit too.
Do you not know what "warhead" means? Is that what's making you so confused? That's the explodey part my sweet, sweet summer child. You can switch that to a big fucking pink dildo and since Stinger missiles are kinetic-kill you can absolutely put a flaming dildo in the fuselage of a beat up Mi-24 if you really, really want to do that.
I realize having crippling stupid is difficult but please try to pay attention.
Summer and winter have the least amount of visitors on 4chan. It's really springfaggots you have to worry about.
No shape charge = no armor penetration
Swapping out the warhead, the electronics are designed for a certain payload, the missile will not fly the same and will crash
The missile is designed to be radar guided, air to air radar is useless for picking up and locking onto ground objects,
Some are Heat seeking, again these sensors are designed to detect a hot burning jet engine in a cold atmosphere, hot tank or vehicle engine signature is not as easy to pick up on the ground with these sensors where there are more warmer objects to confuse the missile,
so again No
>these sensors are designed to detect a hot burning jet engine in a cold atmosphere, hot >tank or vehicle engine signature is not as easy to pick up on the ground with these sensors where there are more warmer objects to confuse the missile
This is true, you need a jet engine to get a lock on with a heat seeker. This is why Russia uses helicopters and the DPRK uses prop planes; they are immune to heat seeking missiles. Hence why 'Bear' prop bombers are such a threat since heat seekers cannot harm them.
Visual and radar guidance still work however. Props are just rather fuel efficient, which is why the Russians still use them and the norks are too fucking poor for anything better.
>This is why Russia uses helicopters and the DPRK uses prop planes; they are immune to heat seeking missiles.
this is one of the dumbest things i read in this place and remember we are in 4chan ...
Hinds are over rated. Source: Shafi and Alaei:
Also note Esmail Sehati / Mohammad Sahrai, apparently they said FUCK IT FIRE EVERYTHING and played chicken with the Mig taking it down with hydra 70 rockets like some glorious flack shotgun.
>the missile will not fly the same and will crash
God damn it, no it fucking won't. It will affect the range but the guidance of most missiles is not sophisticated or sensitive to the point where changing the warhead weight will matter. If the missile's stability in flight is not compromised it will still work just fine.
Take the FIM-92, the missile isn't "heat seeking" it's actually looking for a hole in the sky where there's no UV and lack of an IR signature, they don't chase warm objects so much as they chase the abyss in the picture. (this is why you need to point the missile at open sky and start the seeker, you're giving it a negative picture before you "sick" it on the target) Their only form of guidance is a two-axis seeker head that corresponds to the guidance fins, determining how far to turn the fins is done through measuring the range the seeker has turned along an axis.
Now say you have an extra heavy warhead and the missile successfully leaves the tube and the motor engages. Since the seeker head will be turning to follow the target, the fins will turn accordingly but the slower and much more sluggish missile will not respond to this input as fast and as such the missile will have to maintain this turn for longer. As long as it's still airworthy the missile will do it's job just fine, but it won't be as effective.
Stinger missiles are very, very simple which is why they're a viable MANPADS and they kill by slamming into a target and exploding. Their flight from launch to kill is a big chase, they don't lead the target at all and operate much like early AIM-9s did back in Vietnam so a heavier warhead would just make that job more difficult but they would absolutely still do it to the best of their ability.
You could absolutely have a missile variant that has no seeker or guidance, just the booster and shorter motor fitted with a shaped charge warhead and it would work just fine. (plus shorter firing procedure, start, tone, fire)
They are so simple to operate that every terrorist group on earth that has obtained one can't even get a target lock on a civilian airliner because they can't figure out how to bypass the hardwired IFF to power it up.
True fact, Stingers are totally worthlessin non state hands and have never downed or even been fired against a unintended (i.e non NATO ally) target because they are physically incapable of doing so.
Haha, no the IFF system isn't hardwired, you can fire a stinger without the antenna and it'll work just fine. There is no failsafe to prevent NATO aircraft from being shot down and it's likely that A-10s supporting Operation Enduring Freedom that took surface to air fire from MANPADS caught a couple stingers as well. (though they could be Strela-3 missiles too)
Also look to the Angola Civil War, a Lockheed L-100 was shot down in an area where UNITA forces were operating. The Reagan administration had provided UNITA with some stinger missiles and had trouble getting them back after the fighting was over. (though there is no proof it was a Stinger or if it was fired by UNITA forces) Same shit happened in Afghanistan, which is why the CIA has had a bounty for the missiles, they do actually pose a threat:
It seems to me if you're fighting an unconventional war, you'd want to blow up as little as possible, preferring to disable the tanks by other means, especially if it's only like a couple tanks that are otherwise undefended like I've seen in some Syrian clips.
Makes me wonder, would it be feasible to set some sort of tank trap using impact hammers to fuck up the tracks?
Then just get a megaphone and tell them to come out peacefully, and they can go free. Or try to wololo them for their expertise.
I don't want to sabotage your point or anything, but there's no way anyone's going to fit a 93mm diameter shaped charge in a 70mm diameter missile body and launch tube.
I mean, you could conceivably whip up a 70mm body diameter shaped charge to retrofit to FIM-92s, but how effective would that really be?
>Maybe if you designed a dual purpose launcher from the ground up.
In other words, this has more truth than is otherwise immediately obvious.
That's basically what I meant, but if you turned down the copper cone and reformed the charge it wouldn't make that much of a difference. I went with the PG7 warhead as an example to keep things simple because as you can clearly see some people have issues with even that.
A dual purpose man portable anti-tank and anti-air missile launcher would an amazing to have if it was light enough and reliable enough. Personally I'd beef up the diameter for shorter missiles that would be less cumbersome to carry and make the tube break at the shoulder so it can be folded for easier carrying.
Pushing anti-air capability further toward the squad level would be neat as hell, but the issue is practicality and effectiveness.
>This is true, you need a jet engine to get a lock on with a heat seeker.
Pic is from SA-7 Grail manual. Engagement envelopes against Li-2 and Mi-4 aircrafts. Fun fact: ancient SA-7 didn't even have cooled seeker.
The loss of shaped charge diameter doesn't have that much of an effect?
And it certainly would be amazing, wouldn't it? I'm thinking a large diameter, stubby unguided recoilless shell or perhaps soft-launch missile for anti-armor, and a matching anti-air missile with ejector can, full diameter (as in, takes up the full launcher tube the way the anti-tank weapon does) very short all-boost motor, and subcaliber final stage sustain with big fins or some shit.
I honestly don't see too much practical use for anti-air at the squad level, like you said.
But have you heard anything about Raytheon Pike?
Oh it does, the diameter chosen for the PG7 is the most efficient size for that amount of explosive and the shape is equally as vital.
I think soft-launch is ideal for both anti-tank and anti-air, you're able to get a high velocity missile with minimum preparation and recoil, everything after that can be tailored for whatever you're trying to do.
As for anti-air at the squad level proooobably not much use in the conflicts we've faced so far but in a conventional war (or something to that effect) having an option to engage the helicopter menace would be pretty rad.
Also, no, I haven't.
No, I didn't. Technically you could plow a Stinger missile into the side of a tank which I've said in a few posts. Wouldn't do much but you could maybe fuck up the optics or something.
>pic related, e.g. a FIM-92 used on a modern combat tank like a T-90, etc.
No against a modern soviet tank descendant i.e. T-84, T-90, T14 etc. they virtually do no damage.
Even if you managed to get the safety off or get a lock on and fire at one of said tanks, the ERA would absorb all damage as MANPADS don't have shaped charges but HE-Frag warheads, also pretty small ones as much of the space is used for guiding parts.
If you manage to fire it somehow on ground targets it only be effective against soft targets or lightly armored vehicles.
In unconventional warfare tanks are usually destroyed with RPGs from good attack positions, i.e. the back or top. Even if they are just using the old PG-7 grenade they might pierce this parts.
Or they somehow got their hands on either PG-7-VRs or RPG-29s they can engage all kind of tanks.
About 2 km range guided missile employed from 40mm grenade launchers.
Yeah, I know, it's awesome. And can't be shot from a 203, unfortunately.
I brought up Pike because, with regard to the helicopter menace and quickly reacting to it, I'm thinking that coupling a sufficiently hot motor to Pike might mean that a fireteam's grenadier, of all things, might be able to lob a "go away" shot at a too-closely loitering helicopter.
How would you guide it though? I've done some reading about it, looks like it's laser guided which means a lot of anti-air applications are out the window. Having a small seeker head would be very, very tough given you'd only have about 38mm to work with, plus you'd need a little nitrogen or argon bottle to cool the seeker, and finally the bigger guidance computer to pilot the thing.
Wouldn't have very much warhead there after all of that. Plus there's the issue of speed, MANPADS already have difficulty chasing fixed-wing combat aircraft and they actually have even more difficulty intercepting head-on. Could that tiny motor exceed 500 m/s and for how long?
The initial guidance plan was to have a fireteam leader carry a pistol-sized laser projector, which I thought was stupid as hell because you could put it on their rifle and it'd be a great deal steadier. You could conceivably have the team leader keep their rifle pointed at the aircraft.
> MANPADS already have difficulty chasing fixed-wing combat aircraft
>having an option to engage the helicopter menace
>with regard to the helicopter menace
>might be able to lob a "go away" shot at a too-closely loitering helicopter.
I already had reservations about what you could do in such a small airframe; basically, a surface-to-air Pike would really just be a "go away" shot, like I said; either makes pilots not want to take the risk of getting too close and makes them operate more conservatively, or as an emergency measure to get them to go defensive and fuck off due to the small chance it might actually DO anything.
There's no fucking way it's going to be a threat to fixed-wing, nor is fixed-wing ever going to get down close enough to have a chance to get rekt by this notional surface-to-air Pike in the future due to the proliferation of tiny low-cost surface attack PGMs.
Well no matter what means they use to guide the things this is definitely a cool as fuck idea. Like you said, it could be a helicopter deterrent but damn it would be cool to have a fire and forget missile system this size.
Though that might best be reserved for a proper-sized all-purpose missile launcher like I suggested and keep this puppy as a backup for on-the-spot reacting to threats.