Why don't you ever see AA Missile launchers on MBTs (a la Command & Conquer's Mammoth tank)? The M6 Linebacker had Stinger Missile Launchers on the side. Why couldn't or shouldn't we do the same with an MBT, and cover a larger range of targets?
Forgot the image.
Yeah, probably better to develope a vehicle for a specific task, and have it excel at it, instead of being pretty good at many things.
Wait. what is the US Army's current AA vehicle? I don't see any AA besides Patriot Systems, and Soldier carried Stinger launchers. If they aren't using the LAV-AD anymore, is anything filling the gap?
Because an all-roles-in-one vehicle is shit; more expensive, more vulnerable, and less effective than two different vehicles for different roles.
Was that not in your stupid video game?
these are pretty sexy but the VADS was always underpowered VS the helis it was meant to kill (hinds). its cannon simply couldn't reach as far as the helis could shoot their ATGM's from.
in reality these would mostly have been used in the anti-personnel and anti-soft-skin-vehicle role.
>Why couldn't or shouldn't we do the same with an MBT, and cover a larger range of targets?
well, you CAN do that, but it really makes a lot more sense to put your stingers on foot or on a smaller, faster vehicle than a tank.
MBTs are meant to be the centre of attention, small arms, crew served weapons, large caliber guns and ATGMs all have these as a high priority
Mounting anything irrelevant to immediate survival on an MBT is wasted effort
AA weapons are better served by concealed positions and easy access to rapid reloading
This thing is so pointless. An entire hmmv for 8 stingers and a m3 browning.
No armor, radar, off road etc. It's not armored enough to be anywhere near a frontline, yet has such short range it has to be close. For some reason this vehicle also has the profile of a medieval watchtower as it was apparently to challenging to make a gunner station in the passenger seat, or have him sit lower; in other words, good luck hiding this thing. Ah and let's not forget about the browning on the side. Shooting at aircraft with a fiddy cal with no FCS always seemed as a durka durka thing to do to me. Apparently these brave syrian warriors copied it directly from american doctrine, at least they are smart enough to use Toyotas as platform though, instead of the god awful hmmv.
Designs like these is what you end up with of you don't have wars to test your equipment in.
>hurr we will always rule the skies
>no use 4 AA if they has no plane rite ?
So many fucking flaws in the concept of US air defence doctrine.
the .50 is for engaging ground targets, amigo. it's just so your stinger bus isn't totally defenseless.
I don't really see what the problem is with having 8 stingers ready to go. that's 7 more than the usual way (carried by two dudes on foot), and much quicker because it's a truck.
I'm not saying it's a perfect vehicle, I'm just saying it's not "pointless". it makes sense for what it is.
The thing is that as soon as you get into "just slap a browning on it so it's not defenseless" you might as well slap a stinger on an Abrams. The vehicle that is actually armored very well, wil not get fucked by .30 AP and has mobility, spare power and enough space for at least a double launcher on the back. It saves you an entire vehicle, crew and accompanying gas+MRE's. There is no point in a specialized vehicle if it does not grant any special capabilities. Soft skinned vehicles have no place on the frontlines, and the frontlines is where this thing would operate. Also a manpads on every tank would also be discouraging to enemy pilots, quite the advantage imo.
>a manpads on every tank would also be discouraging to enemy pilots, quite the advantage imo.
Take a look at an Avenger again, and look at that giant ass turret set up on its bed just to fire 8 stinger missiles. Do you really think you can fit something like that on an Abrams?
Missile launchers on tanks now mean you've got a nice fat satchel charge enemy infantry can set off with a GPMG.
It's a bad idea for a vehicle you intend to expose to enemy fire (like a tank).
The best AS is all weather superiority anyways.
>Also a manpads on every tank would also be discouraging to enemy pilots
>aircraft only attack front lines
>anything that is not tracked and armored like an MBT is useless
You mean full functional right? Weighs 15kg, ~8 km range, strap two on your abrams for a combined cost of $75k and when you see that mi-28n with your THERMALS (guess what doesn't have thermal cameras), you can just pop the hatch and shoot under <30 secs.
Anon, that line of thinking is how the Bradley was born. Less is more.
Though, a specialty vehicle made from an Abrams hull attached to a Stinger launcher wouldn't be a bad idea; like a less terrible version of the Sgt. York.
Do you people have cognitive shortcomings? If you really hope to defend a FOB or depot from strike planes with a glorified manpads carrier, you are beyond saving. That is patriot territory. And why the fuck the entire cabin and 8 missiles. Jesus read a book and an hero in no specific order.
the reason you keep your AA and your MBT's separate is because they engage different kinds of targets that won't always be together.
imagine if you had to call up your MBT every time an enemy heli appeared.
>hurrrr just put the AA on a different vehicle then!
...then why would you put it on an MBT?
>If you really hope to defend a FOB or depot from strike planes with a glorified manpads carrier
Nobody said that but you. The fact that you think stingers can shoot down planes at all is some turbo-retard shit.
By the way, there are these aircraft called "Helicopters", and that's what stingers are meant to shoot down. You can't use Patriots for that.
>multi-role vehicles cut down on logistics
Not really, not if they don't replace an existing vehicle.
A stinger on an MBT wouldn't replace AA vehicles, it would just add a new page of stuff that every armor platoon would have to worry about.
Why would you bother? Just put a bigger gun on it and shoot Army Rangers at the incoming aircraft instead. They train to seize airfields so it follows that they can easily take out a single aircraft.
you are supposed to replace AA vehicles with MBTs that can do AA too.
Also the navy is adding anti-ship capability to tomahawks and the SM-3 specifically to be as multi-role as possible.
Severely lacking round as it has no real fragmentation going on. And good luck on reaching out to 8km.
Well the belorussians could, so why not the US? Besides why would you? Option one is sitting in a plexiglass cabin before/during/after firing, option two is sitting in a DU reinforced cabin before/after but not during firing.
Haha jesus christ, been playing too much wargame? Want to bring the chapparal back too? You never know when those MIG-25BM attack your FOB right, thank god the Avenger stops the strike package in that scenario.
Because of the value of mobility an AA vehicle on the Abrams chassis has been proposed, much along the principle of the ADATS with DP missiles and RADAR/EOTS. Indeed very similar to bradley thinking in terms of mobility dependency and front line AA.
You really need to look into a helium based solution for your oxygen based problems.
>he's still replying
the fact that jokeposting is getting more attention than your shitposts should be a clue, friend.
No, if you do that then the carrier mafia will simply put them on carriers and greatly increase the cost of defense. You need to give them their own hulls and then they can replace the ridiculous LCS while still providing air defense both at sea and on land.
Nope. There were a series of different programs that saw a change in direction over the course of the many that occurred. The Bradley program itself did not undergo much feature creep at all.
You faggots are all retarded, it's obvious that we just make everything with stealth capabilities so the enemy never knows we're coming.
Shit nigger, there could be an F-35 in your room THIS FUCKING MOMENT and you don't know.
>MANPADs on tanks
I totally get what he's saying, but the entire point of a MANPAD is it can easily be carried a MAN.
The entire point of vehicles is to have weapons that a man can't carry.
Fuck sakes, you people are idiots. Manpads are effective against helos and maybe MAYBE loitering CAS aircraft. Everything else is at "Don't fucking bother" altitudes. Any vehicle that would be worth mounting a manpad on will probably already have a weapon that's going to be roughly as effective against anything you'd be shooting a manpad at.
I would say that the 25mm is getting a bit long in the tooth. There's not much more they can do with a round that size. It'll need to be upgunned by the end of the decade. Ideally the Bradley would get an entirely new replacement, but e.
>not putting 50s on shit to shoot stuff
You are absolutely retarded
why "SWOOOSSH!!!" when you can "BBRRTTTTT!!"?
>it'll need to be upgunned by the end of the decade
To kill what? It's still capable of frontally penetrating every armored vehicle on the planet that ISNT an Abrams/Chally2/Leo2/LeClerc/T80MS/Armata MBT/K2. It positively rapes IFV's and APC's.
The Avenger has FLIR, can carry a lot more missiles ready to fire than two dudes on foot (8 vs 1, and that's without a trailer), and also doesn't have to worry about batteries.
I'm not saying it's a great system, it's clearly pretty marginal, but let's not get carried away.
Biggest problem is lack of situational awareness in a tank.
When buttoned up, a tank has less SA even with FLIR and CITV than a dismount with his ears and Mk.1 eyeball. The most important thing about air defense is detection and reaction. If the tank can't detect the helicopter in time, strapping MANPADS on is a waste, not to mention the very real possibility of overburdening the TC.
Guys we just ditch all the super carriers and have a private cargo ship company build them instead of defense contractors. They manage to build ships just as big for a lot less money!
Feast your eyes on this beauty.
It was a decent idea and one of our main reasons for backing the Canadian development of the ADATS system.
But then we remembered we have the First Second and Third Largest Air-force in the world and this kind of tech wasn't really necessary.
Details of the turret, it used an Abrams Chassis sorta like the Brits for their Heavy AAA
too bad it was drawingboard concept only
Isn't AA stuff no longer in use because basically all you're fighting these days are dirty cavement with AK-47s and RPGs, instead of the classic soviet/iraqis armies with actual money for vehicles that aren't pickup trucks with mounted machineguns
>what is the US Army's current AA vehicle?
However, the US army recently announced that they were pursuing a plan to add AA abilities to Strykers (which is basically just an ACP). They want to up-gun them to 30mm, which they think will give them some AA potential.
You mean from the two countries that won't produce them in meaningful quantities and will never export them, meaning we'll never actually face on on a battlefield? Also the Namer and supposedly the T15 can still be penetrated over the entire frontal arc, much less the sides, by the 25mm APFSDS load we've had for nearly 30 years.
Anything sufficiently powerful enough to jam satellite links in a UCAV operating at 50,000ft from any meaningful distance will jam their own shit and everything else in a 100mi radius, as well as eating more power than a football stadium during a nighttime bowl game per emitter and simply can't be fielded away from infrastructure as nobody has a generator powerful enough to run one.
Yes, bwcaise the MBT concept allowed them to be as "Multirole" as possible without too heavy of a compromise
As has been pointed out, you have nothing to gain
If you affix a box launcher to the side of the turret then you have to rotate the turret to engage the aircraft, offering the sides or rear of the turret you also have to have crew dismount or a complex internal connection to the launcher
The other option is a single launch tube mounted on a RWS instead of the Browning, ask any tanker which they'd rather have
You also have atleast 3kg of HE strapped to the outside of the turret, items that where proof to small arms fire like antenna and the RWS etc are now sat next to a fixed grenade on the side of the tank not to mention the dangers to supporting infantry
Now, as established stingers have a max range of 8km, the gun has a max effective range of 3km, a little less than 1/2 that already so you are taking these disadvantages for a 5km boost.
Now are you honestly saying there is no where within 1 or 2km that an avenger could be holed up?
shit`s all been mothballed
there won`t be anyone with the capacity to oppose american aerial power for at least the next 20 years.
obviously the rest of nato can get their asses contested by the browns and yellows so most of them have AA systems fielded, except Canada, the retards, but US doesnt have to care.
If they`re faced with any kind of aircraft, even a $200 000 cessna or a $500 000 delphin, they can politically justify the deployment of a large jet fighter package, dozens of 4+ or 5 gens, which would establish air dominance in about however long it takes them to get to the enemy airfields at 300kph
>except Canada, the retards
When was the last time Canada went somewhere with their military where they didn't have extensive US support?
Also nobody's gonna invade Canada for fear of the US defending them.
>When was the last time Canada went somewhere with their military where they didn't have extensive US support?
exactly, because they can`t
in wargame canadians lack a bunch of capability and are hard as fuck to play, and thats WITH them using a bunch of fictional/retired tech
>Namer frontal arc has roughly 250mm RHA-equiv armor (classified, experts' estimate)
>T15 is completely unknown but estimated to be similar
m919 has ~190mm RHA penetration @ 30* deflection, ~280mm RHA penetration at zero deflection
Probably would not penetrate the front of a Namer due to the extreme frontal slope
Dunno about he US, but a few country have vehicles carry manpads in their kit. IIRC, russian MSTA-S spg, amonst others. Nothing (besides TOE) prevents you from doing it, and some paranoid crews might snatch a launcher in the armory if they expected to encounter helos.
But if you want a non-dedicated AA platform with SAM, the only things I see are Adats, nk tanks during parades.
Also, some tank shells with proximity/timed fuses are supposed to be effective against helicopters. Still better than nothing, I guess.