NickC wrote:MHTK under development by LM for the US Army Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) program, IFPC, Indirect Fire Protection Capability / C-RAM, counter-artillery, rocket and mortar threats and UAVs
US Army EAPS program given high priority after Russian artillery attack for three minutes July 2014 when elements of four Ukrainian brigades only 9 km from border were devastated by Russian BM-21 Grad MLRS using dual purpose improved conventional munitions, air dropped mines, top down anti-tank submuntions and thermobaric fuel/air explosives.
RetroSicotte wrote:What a wonderful system, shares ammo with the Apaches too.
As Gabriel pointed out once long before, the M320 is a perfect "cheaper end" weapon to throw on MIVs, especially if they can be upgraded for a few SHORAD counter UAV elements.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:What is the thing under armour cover, behind the driver windows?
- a 4th (spare) radar panel?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the Swiss thread there is the budget figure (still to be divvied up between fighters and GBAD) and here https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=32425 are excerpts from a market survey (I guess to establish the cost benchmark for the performance sought for the GBAD component)
- interesting comments on CAMM (range, ceiling, energy for final manoeuvres), though the paragraph is so short that it would seem to indicate that a different class of system is being sought
indeid wrote:ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the Swiss thread there is the budget figure (still to be divvied up between fighters and GBAD) and here https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=32425 are excerpts from a market survey (I guess to establish the cost benchmark for the performance sought for the GBAD component)
- interesting comments on CAMM (range, ceiling, energy for final manoeuvres), though the paragraph is so short that it would seem to indicate that a different class of system is being sought
I am always amazed that some people think you can compare 'headline' range figures without knowing the profile of the target. In Anti Air Warfare more than most areas the targets behaviour has a big say in the effective range of your weapon system. The engagements zones for front hemisphere shots compared to a tail chase are massive.
You don't just draw a 25km circle around a CAMM platform!
RetroSicotte wrote:For one, Janes IHS once reported CAMM (not ER) reached out to 60km in testing. Granted THAT probably had low energy by that point, but it's definitely a given that CAMM is a lot further than 25km in its simplified reach statistics.
RetroSicotte wrote:The author clearly has some form of bias going on. For one, Janes IHS once reported CAMM (not ER) reached out to 60km in testing. Granted THAT probably had low energy by that point, but it's definitely a given that CAMM is a lot further than 25km in its simplified reach statistics.
indeid wrote:RetroSicotte wrote:The author clearly has some form of bias going on. For one, Janes IHS once reported CAMM (not ER) reached out to 60km in testing. Granted THAT probably had low energy by that point, but it's definitely a given that CAMM is a lot further than 25km in its simplified reach statistics.
So now we’re back to drawing (bigger) circles. I bet against some profiles the range of CAMM is significantly less than 25km.
So what profile is the target on allowing CAMM to achieve the required Pk at is a lot further than 25km range?
RetroSicotte wrote:I am aware of the inaccuracy of "just max range", but what I'm saying is that one way or the other, it is easy to misrepresent CAMM to push an agenda in an article, by ignoring that even in the most simplified measure (the "max range") it is often underreated.
Lord Jim wrote:When you say "Fire Units", I assume you are referring to batteries rather than individual launch vehicles.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests