Vehicle launched anti tank missiles are a particular hobbyhorse of mine, don’t ask why, I don’t know!
Looking back over the FRES series we used to have a rather interesting capability with the Swingfire missile and Striker vehicle.
Of all the CVR(T) variants, Striker was arguably the most ingenious.
Intended to provide anti tank top cover for the other variants it was equipped with a launch system for the Swingfire anti tank guided missile.
After the cancellation of the Orange William missile in 1959 Fairey had continued development work on wire guided anti tank missiles and this would result in Swingfire. Introduced in 1969, Swingfire was a brute of a missile. The warhead weighed in at 7kg alone, and it had a couple of unique features that set it apart from its rivals.
Upon launch, it could immediately switch direction by 90 degrees using a ‘jetivator’Â and the sighting equipment could be dismounted to a distance of 30m and 15m higher or lower; thus, the launch vehicle could be advantageously placed for concealment. With the missile launcher in the stowed position Striker looked like just another armoured personnel carrier, not the lethal anti tank machine it was.
The vehicle could carry 5 missiles in ready to launch boxes with an additional 5 stowed in the hull.
In true Research Establishment fashion, the boffins determined that the kill probability of each Swingfire was 40% so it would take precisely two and a half missiles to kill each enemy tank, also that a vehicle engaging enemy tanks with ATGW would only kill two before itself being destroyed.
Therefore, five missiles were all that needed to be fitted (or so the story went)
Swingfire also found its way onto a number of heavy and lightweight platforms, the FV438, various Land Rovers and other light vehicles.
Swingfire Missile
Most of the alternative platforms were mostly trials vehicles or did not stay in service that long but Striker endured and saw service in the Middle East in 1991 and 2003. In both operations it was judged to be a success, the Lessons Learned compendium for Operation TELIC made a specific recommendation to review the out of service date.
In 1986, the FV120 Spartan Milan Compact Turret (MCT) variant was introduced, although Milan’s maximum range of 2,000m was a significant step-down from Swingfire at 4,000m.
To compensate for the lack of FV438 in armoured infantry a number of Milan firing posts were, basically, welded to the turret tops of Warriors in 2003.
FFLAV defined a requirement for an anti tank missile carrier and so did TRACER, TRACER going so far as demonstrating a mockup equipped with Brimstone missiles.
The GKN ‘Stealth Warrior’ was also shown with a missile carrying turret.
Stormer 30 took a similar missile armed turret approach.
FRES also specified an anti tank missile carrying variant called Overwatch.
With the original vision for FRES mostly dead and buried and the Swingfire and Milan missiles long out of service the Army does not have anything comparable to Striker or FV438 in service and no plans for an equivalent either.
The concept it seems is dead and buried, at least for the British Army.
Perhaps the argument is that with the increasing availability of precision fires from land, air and even sea, there is no longer a need but, operational experience and reams of analysis would seem to have a different opinion and the gapping of this capability a big mistake?
In other nations armed forces Hellfire has been used in a number ground launched guises, as these examples show
The venerable TOW missile continues to be upgraded and mounted on a number of armoured and lightweight vehicles. The latest version reportedly has a 7km plus range and much shorter flight time.
There was even a concept of mounting TOW on a Spartan
The German Cold War concept of elevating HOT missiles on the Jagdleopard or Panther was born of the notion that total control of the air was not a given.
Lots of interesting stuff but as I mentioned above, the concept of a dedicated anti tank missile carrier seems like yesterday’s news (apart from for US forces that is)
Which brings us up to date.
There seems to have a cluster of trials and announcements on the subject of vehicle mounted anti tank missiles.
The first out of the traps was the Long Range Surveillance and Attack Vehicle (LRSAV) from Lockheed Martin.
This combined a Stryker, an elevating sensor mast with laser designator and a missile combination of the hard hitting Hellfire II for armoured targets and the DAGR guided 70mm rocket for smaller or non-armoured targets.
From the press release.
The LRSAV is a fully integrated, turreted, ground-vehicle weapon system. It uses advanced missile and weapon control-system technologies and a newly developed 15-inch, spherical, mast-mounted electro-optical/infrared sensor to enable targeting and employment of missiles from a wide range of surface platforms.
During the tests, the vehicle-mounted LRSAV system launched a HELLFIRE II missile from 6.4 km and a DAGR missile from 3.5 km. Both missiles successfully impacted their targets. In both tests, missile lock-on-before-launch and lock-on-after-launch capabilities were used to demonstrate LRSAV’s flexibility for various engagement scenarios. Additionally, an AH-64D Apache helicopter equipped with Lockheed Martin’s Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor (M-TADS/PNVS) was used to remotely designate the short-range target, validating LRSAV’s cooperative battlefield-engagement capability.
The tests confirm that the LRSAV weapon system is a low risk solution that can support multiple missions. Lockheed Martin’s LRSAV weapon system delivers a superior capability that will engage targets from safe standoff distances, and enhanced performance for increased mission success, survivability and low collateral damage.
Lockheed Martin then followed that up with a couple of Javelin firing trials that used two different vehicles and launch configurations.
A lightweight launcher on a TAPV vehicle and a heavier system on a Boxer, the latter being test fired in the UK [Insert FRES rumour here]
Currently, we require Javelin teams to dismount and the ability to use Striker/Swingfire from cover using remote targeting equipment is a capability we longer have.
These solutions from Lockheed Martin would seem to offer a relatively low-risk method of getting back the offboard designation, fire from cover and under armour capability.
Instead of Hellfire II and DAGR a UK version could equally use Hellfire II, or Brimstone, paired with the Lightweight Multi-Role Missile (LMM) which has only recently been subject to a $48 million order from the MoD for Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters.
Thales has proposed a number of seekers for LMM as alternatives to the current beam riding version, including GPS, which might make for an interesting non line of sight weapon out to 8km.
Such a system could even make use of the Exactor missile system, the SPIKE NLOS, now in service.
Exactor isn’t quite the same thing as Hellfire/Brimstone/SPIKE-ER.
It’s SPIKE NLOS intended for precision strikes at up to artillery ranges (25km).
Interesting stuff. But maybe I’ve missed something. We have Exactor right? Or is it that we want a European solution? I’m a fan of Hellfire/Brimstone, especially as they are also being proven in the naval arena.
I still don’t get why precision-guided artillery/mortars hasn’t caught on. Copperhead has been around for ages. Is it about the laser designation? Happy to be enlightened!
@Brian Black not sure about Longbow on a mast (too short?), but whack it on a blimp for base defence and you might have better coverage. Or a stabilised laser designator for Copperhead as noted above.
Had a quick look if SPIKE ER or Brimstone would shoe horn in to a Striker; unfortunately not. Swingfire is a surprisingly short missile – weight and diameter appear to be comparable with SPIKE ER but its too long. A pity as an all terrain lightly armoured airtranportable anti-tank/PGM vehicle would be ideal for a number of roles, such as rapid deployment.
Land Rovers that carry missiles (including Vigilant and Swing fire):
http://www.shorlandsite.com/images/LandRoversMissilesElliott.pdf
Observer,
You make a very good point. I would say two things in response. First, even if you fire 5 x ATGWs per tank kill (at a cost of approximately $3 million in missiles versus $6 million per tank) you still have an advantage. Second, I don’t know how familiar you are with Javelin but it is an excellent system. While the missile is incredibly smart, a true fire-and-forget system, the simulator is equally good, so ensures you set yourself up for good kills. I am not saying that only one missile will be required – you may well hit a tank, but need a second shot to fully disable it and the crew – but even 2 x Javelins gives you an economic advantage. NLAW will neutralise just about any existing APC with a single round. The latest generation of missiles in service already have a degree of sophistication that makes previous generations look archaic.
Newer ATGW systems under development combined with new Fire Control systems, seem as though they will be even better. You will have a 4,000+ range and mega tandem or triple HEAT warheads. There is still much life left in the HEAT concept. You’ll be able to engage tank targets long before they will be able to engage you. Mounting such systems in Apache or a Jackal will provide a truly impressive capability across a range of platforms. Thus, the concept of mounting RPGs and ATGWs on small vehicles will become an even more cost-efficient means of defeating armoured vehicles than it is already. I willingly concede that the best MBTs will probably need to be taken out with 120mm APFSDS fin rounds – you need the kinetic effect of a long rod penetrator. But for IFVs, 8x8s and a raft of armour lesser protected vehicles, ATGWs will do an excellent job.
Going back to Striker. I think it was a brilliant idea. In fact, it still is. The concept of an ATGW overwatch vehicle with a 4,000 m range is still extremely valid. I’d like to see a modern interpretation of Striker on a FRES SV. I see such a vehicle being the land equivalent of an F-35 with the ability to engage multiple targets out of line-of-sight. UAVs will do the target acquisition and laser designation.
@TD
Most ATGW primary missile motors don’t kick in until it has travelled 70-100 metres. This is to protect the firer (and the paint work on the vehicle) .
I think whatever missile you stick on a vehicle ought to be the same as what your infantry carries, so as to simplify logistics. Not too many, either, otherwise all your interior space will end up taken up with missiles that you will seldom use.
A dedicated vehicle, on the other hand, probably ought to carry a decent number of longer ranged, bigger and multi-purpose weapons, either in a VLS or a launcher with reloads. Hellfire or similar seems quite sensible in that regard. Even better if you can fire it from out of line-of-sight (Spike NLOS), and better still if the vehicle can also launch small UAVs to reconnoitre for its shots, although most shots would be cued by forwards vehicles.
Eschewing one or the other will leave gaps. Shorter ranged missiles suitable for adding to all fighting vehicles will leave you with little or no overwatch. It must be remembered that Javelin and similar fire-and-forget missiles needs time to cool down and lock on, though you might be able to mitigate that on a vehicle mount.
Only having overwatch vehicles means you may still be out of range, not in position to assist, terrain limitations etc.
Jed – shades of BMP1: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/BMP-1_AP_1.jpg and BRDM1 with AT-2: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/at-2_brdm_002.jpg and BRDM2 with AT-3: http://www.armyrecognition.com/Russe/vehicules_missiles/BRDM_2Sagger/BRDM-2_sagger_2.jpg – every vehicle a potential ATGW threat…
This got swamped yesterday
We can do more
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/07/cameos-war-sword-beach-bremen-go-buy/
TD as your a self confessed Striker / Swingfire fan boy is the time to back into the dedicated AT over watch vehicle versus “a Javelin on every turret (or RWS)” debate ?
Personally I am for the later.
Striker made sense in its day; but would not having 1 or 2 Javelin “up” on every FREE Scout and / or Warrior IFV make more sense for an overtly expeditionary, offensive and manouvre based doctrine; where meeting engagements are more likely than defensive ambushes ??
Note, too, the South African ZT3 mounted atop a Ratel AFV. These were used in combat in Angola in 1987/88 and did pretty well, after some initial teething problems. I was nearby at the time, and the story’s an amusing one.
The first ZT3-equipped Ratels apparently used missiles from a pre-production run, which weren’t properly ‘tuned’. Instead of guiding along the laser beam to the target, they aimed straight up towards the sun. This resulted in some annoyed birds and Cuban T-55’s and T-62’s getting very aggressive towards the Ratels, which had to retreat in a hurry (to the accompaniment of some interesting language). The next batch of missiles (hurriedly flown up within a day or two) worked much better. They blew the turrets clean off more than one Soviet-sourced tank, and their range of over 5 km. meant that they could sometimes be deployed beyond the ability of T-55 and T-62 series tanks to respond effectively (although in bush warfare ranges were typically closer).
The ZT3 was later developed into the Ingwe missile. and forms the foundation for the soon-to-be-deployed Mokopa air-to-ground ATGW (similar to the US Hellfire).
I reckon 40% kill rate for Swingfire was optimistic, it was a ‘fly-by-thumb’ system and while some training results were excellent (particularly once it was in the hands of creative RHA battery commanders) I fear that battlefield reality would have been different.
Who the operators are and their tactical thinking affects range, infantry operated weapons, basically self-defence, mean thy are really only interested in the shorter ranges. Independent anti-tank batteries deployed for aggressive AFV killing (start with the FLAK vehicles as the highest priority) have a different perspective.
Just because TD would be upset if I didn’t say it:
120 mm breach loading mortar firing something like IAI LAHAT
:)
Monty, but you are assuming a one shot one kill. In Op Cast Lead, some of the results were:
“IDF sources initially estimated that at least 500 ATGMs were fired during the fighting. They reported that a total of 60 armored vehicles of all types (reports these were all tanks are wrong) had been hit as of August 11th. Most continued to operate or were rapidly repaired in the field and restored to service. Only 5-6 of all types represented a lasting vehicle kill.”
“– Some 50 Merkava 2, 3, and 4s were hit, and 21 were penetrated. A total of 11 did not result in fatalities, but 10 other penetrations caused 23 crew casualties. ATGMs also produced major infantry casualties, particularly when IDF reservists bunched inside a building hit by an ATGM (14 infantrymen were killed by ATGMs fired at buildings).”
The 500 rounds/60 hits may not be an accurate estimate as it was later noted that the missiles may not have been fired at tanks but at infantry, or that there may have been an SOP to double tap tanks
What is more interesting is that of the 50 tanks that were hit, only 21 were penetrated and out of that 21, only 10 had casualties which might have taken them out of the battle.
This implies that you need a 5:1 ratio of missile to tank to knock it out, one of the worries I reflected above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malkara_missile
Ok a 50s system but can you imagine what a modern missile of that size would be capable off.
It could either carry a very large warhead or have a great deal of range.
TD,
What’s interesting is much less expensive a TOW launcher on a Humvee is versus SWINGFIRE on a Striker. The economics of defeating tanks is massively skewed in favour of modern missiles versus modern battle tanks at $75,000 per missile versus £7.5 million per tank (approx. price of LeClerc and Ariete). I don’t know what NLAW costs, but I think it must be at least 50% less than JAVELIN.
WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU DO A SERIES ON ATGWs – History, evolution and future prospects
Two remarks:
(1) Operational Research from the Cold War yielded the result that SACLOS with wire guided (and thus slow) missiles would have a break-even against MBTs at 2,000 m – being inferior at shorter ranges. Too bad most combat was expected to happen at less than 2,000 m. The latter explains why there are so many ATGMs for the infantry with smaller ranges (ERYX being an extreme example). Classic ATGMs are unsatisfactory, but often the only system of acceptable weight and range for the purpose.
(2) ATGM launchers can in principle be used to launch ‘dumb’ rockets for blast or flechette effects. I know no such example in service, albeit the Americans with their gun-launched Shillelagh paired it with a dumb round. The Russians have a love affair with the concept of missiles with thermobaric warheads, though.
@ArmChairCivvy:
ATGMs with wire guidance have the wires inside the missile, and release the wires in such a fashion that minimal mechanical loads are applied (the wire basically only drops).
Whatever cable reels carried would be for spaced emplacement of launchers (up to 60 m or so) or for field telephone purposes (radio silence is quite useful for ambushers, and cables are needed to set up the emitter with spacing to the actual bivouac just in case someone triangulates).
With the upcoming need to rebuild Apache with new airframes, perhaps Longbow and missile racks on a mast wouldn’t be too bad an idea. SV common base platform, or maybe there’s a handful of spare trucks knocking about. The pilots probably wouldn’t be best pleased about having to ‘fly’ a 4 tonner around though.
And perhaps while we’re at it, gut a few of the remaining Apache to stick the weapons package onto a cheaper airframe for when we have the sky to ourselves – whether a small attack aircraft like a Tucano, or a gunship like the Jordanian’s recent purchase of an Apache in a C235.
Never got around to asking TD about his use of “dedicated” vehicles in the US army… So the Stryker version made it to service?
Another detail that caught my eye was the piccie of a CVRT missile version with (apparently) a huge cable reel, with a smaller one dispensing from it. Or was it something totally else on top of the missile compartment?
To ACC
Thanks too for your reply. Also makes sense.
Observer
“My guess is that it will be a battery by itself, most artillery don’t mix too well, e.g you don’t see AS90s running with GMLRS, so integration probably won’t be a problem.”
Many thanks for your reply. Seems to make a good deal of sense. One of the reasons I posted, though, is that AS90s have been lumped in with GMLRS (in the same regiments) under Army 2020. Thought perhaps that Exactor would be inextricably attached to such regiments and would not have much autonomy. Anyway, making them a “reaction fire” arm seems to make sense.
Mike, after the SDSR (when the multi-bdes were alkve and kicking, as an idea) there was a lot of emphasis on all arty x-tRaining between heavy and light.
I think this is just a new variation to the theme: you would always take the precision fires when you go, but only the type of guns needed for the campaign. How many AS-90s in Afghan?
Obs, as DN says: mobility, accuracy and *reach*. Theyare specialist weapons, as long as you have some in the right place, at the right time, the 1:10 is fine.now ,if you don’thave them at all (no tanks, heavy arty, CAS), then the term is d**p sh@tasfor the location..
– just to illustrate, as you mentioned Finland there
– all the ERs would be expended on shipping/LCPs/ hovercraft
– the rest arefor the northern areas where you get open spaces akin to Scotland
– where else do youget to shoot over 4+ km? No deserts.
The next level AT weapons would have a zero added to their number; the next one another zero to that (as they are carruied as an insurance to being in a situation where the platoon or squad is temporarily on its own.
No need to get hung up on the unit ost of the sharp tip of the spear. Iunderstand you are coming from the angle of kitting out anumerous conscripted force. The bright side is that they don’t go expeditionary, so a lot of the specialist kit needs a zero budget.
/facepalm
Forget it. I suspect you’re just trolling me.
Observer,
‘In fact I VERY SPECIFICALLY stated that I would regret the wastage.’
No need to shout because you are having trouble following a conversation, deep breaths in through the nose out through the mouth.
To avoid the wastage use a different warhead.
I never recommended AT rounds to be used on bunkers. In fact I VERY SPECIFICALLY stated that I would regret the wastage.
Mike
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/04/search-exactor/
My guess is that it will be a battery by itself, most artillery don’t mix too well, e.g you don’t see AS90s running with GMLRS, so integration probably won’t be a problem. I suspect that they will be attached to UAV/UAS units as their “reaction fire” arm.
Observer,
All the the rounds you quoted are Anti-Tank, I said if you optimised the warhead for its purpose ie destroying bunkers (HE, blast etc) you would not need to use an Anti-Tank round. Rafael have already developed a light weight missile for the spike launcher optimised for Anti Personnel and structures.
Like I said its the mobility and precision of the system that is it’s benefit, put whatever warhead on the round you want.
TD and others
I am interested in what exactly the future arrangement for mounting the Exactor will be. We have been told that it has been accepted into core but that still leaves quite a few questions unanswered.
In Afghanistan it was used on the M113 but the latest ideas circulating seem to be that it will be fitted on a smaller, more easily deployed, expeditionary-type vehicle. The difficulty with my accepting that is that it will normally be part of heavy artillery formations (alongside AS 90 and GMLRS). At least I assume that is the thinking. So how would a smaller vehicle fit in with that concept?
I suppose it could be fitted to FRES SV There has been some talk of an anti-tank version of that. However, we would still be faced with the problem of FRES SV’s weight and its ease, or otherwise, of deployability.
I’ll give you an example from the Spike ATGM contracts.
Spain
Total 2,800 missiles, breakdown being 2,600 Spike-LR with remaining 200 being Spike-ER.[21] 236 Spike LR launchers
1:11.8 ratio
Germany
Total 4,000 Spike-LR missiles,[21] 311 LR launchers on Puma vehicles
1:12.8 ratio
Finland
Total 700 missiles, breakdown being 300 Spike-MR with the remaining 400 being Spike-ER.[21] 100 MR (Panssarintorjunta-ohjus 2000) launchers
1:7 ratio
You only got 10 rounds per launcher. Use them all and that is it. And if you spent them on infantry before the tanks show up… I’d say “good luck” but if the result was your own inability to control usage, then the end result is well deserved.
Edit:
Sigh… now I finally figured out the cross purpose talk. DN, I was talking in general, not specifically about Swingfire. If you were, then good for you to have so many missiles on hand.
Observer,
We are not talking about other nations, the article is about the withdrawal of Swingfire from the UK armed forces and possible replacement.
‘ you know that some armies only have 10-20 units per launcher for their WHOLE army?’
Good, it’s called overmatch for a reason.
DN, you know that some armies only have 10-20 units per launcher for their WHOLE army? Nothing to do with carry capacity, but more to do with economic situation and logistics. You are assuming an unending supply of ammo and optional warhead and fusing options. Many countries do NOT have that much. The US and UK and honestly me as well are fortunate in that we have the funding for a lot of things, many other countries do not.
Observer,
‘vehicle has only a limited number of ATGM’
You only carry a limited number of anything, the fact you can have a warhead that is designed for the task that you want to achieve does not change that. You tailor your load to your requirement and a warhead optimised to bunker busting etc is just another string to your bow.
‘you obviously work in an army flushed with resources’
Maybe you should pay more tax? ;-)
DN, you obviously work in an army flushed with resources. Many places do NOT have the luxury of being able to buy the whole range of warheads. And I think you miss the point of my thinking. I never said anything about a deficient or otherwise warhead, my point was that any army or vehicle has only a limited number of ATGMs, not the warhead but the booster itself, and while you can use it in roles it was not intended for, you need to keep some in reserve to do your primary job, which means that you can’t simply fire them off on infantry targets, only in unavoidable situations.
“the boffins determined that the kill probability of each Swingfire was 40% so it would take precisely two and a half missiles to kill each enemy tank, also that a vehicle engaging enemy tanks with ATGW would only kill two before itself being destroyed.”
Always wondered why they didn’t just stick another five firing boxes on top of the existing five on the Striker, I’m sure in the Gulf the extra few rounds would’ve been a confidence booster.
TD, I’m amazed you haven’t mentioned the Thales Rapid Ranger as an instant solution, seeing as you’ve done an article on it before.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/09/dsei-2013-rapid-ranger/
Observer,
If you use an ATGM against a fortified position it’s the warhead you are using inappropriately not the system. If you had a range of warheads you would use the required version for the job. The ATGM has the advantage of range over the likes of Charlie G and it has precision over our current mortar rounds.
DN, I was deploring the wastage of flushing ATGMs all over the place if you have a limited supply, not complaining about their technical capabilities. One is a technical “problem”, the other is an economical and logistical problem.
ATGMs are simply valuable due to their rarity, and if you are saving them to meet the “big threat”, your usage of them is naturally confined, so yes you can use them as bunker busters, but no you should not do it too often lest you run out when you need it the most.
Observer,
You just solved your problem, ‘Or get a general purpose round’
DN, if you’re poor, you can’t afford to get the whole range, which is the situation for a lot of the planet. Despite the complaints about the UK’s budget, it is actually fairly decent and more importantly spent (fairly) wisely. You get the round which is the primary job for the role of the weapon you bought it for. Or get a general purpose round.
Let me put it in another way. You only got 10-20 rounds for your weapon and that is it. Are you going to use them on infantry if people were counting on you to be the unit’s primary anti-tank defence?
That is also the reason I like the 84. You use them to bust buildings and save the AT missiles for when you really need them.
Of course, if the strongpoint was really jamming up your advance, I might advocate the use of an ATGM to break the deadlock, but not as the solution for it all the time.
Observer,
‘It would be a bit sad to finish firing your 12 round loadout at infantry strongpoints only to see an IFV come round the corner’
You would develop warheads suitable for the task and load out as appropriate , so bunker busting rounds etc rather than anti armour, it’s the guidance and mobility of the system that are its advantages couple it with multi use warheads and your onto a winner.
I still think we should reintroduce the Charlie G for the same reason.
ACC, they should pay you commission. :P
a, that’s true, though personally I would deplore the wastage. ATGMs are rare, not only expensive. It would be a bit sad to finish firing your 12 round loadout at infantry strongpoints only to see an IFV come round the corner. Many armies only have about 10-20 rounds per launcher which is why most will keep holding them until the primary target shows up. The US is a bit of a different case, they are big enough and “rich” enough as well as the primary supplier to afford wastage. Many other countries don’t have that luxury.
I think sitting in that metal tub firing HOT missiles could qualify as the shittest job of the cold war!
Complex Weapons are indeed a bright spot for the UK but I still think we are failing to utilise their qualities to the maximum potential.
Would like to see the Striker qualities of guidance from outside the vehicle, fire from cover and protected mobility
The elevating feature is interesting because it was born of a notion that air dominance was not a given, are we wrongly assuming such now?
Putting LMM and Brimstone 2 on the same vehicle with an elevating mast sensor I think would provide a very useful capability
TD – Heard a good dit from an MBDA bloke about those raised firing platforms. Idea being that ze Germans would hide behind buildings and poke the missiles over the top to target the Soviet hordes from cover.
So they set up a very long, narrow test range and prepped the thing for a trial live firing. My memory gets hazy at this point, but there was some kind of malfunction and brakes on the rotating turret at the top of the arm failed. So when the rocket motor ignited the whole thing slewed off to the left and the missile went nowhere.
The German range warden had a severe sense of humour failure, as there was now an entire launcher of ATGMs pointed at the neighbouring village. Where he lived and his kids went to school…
As for the present day, we have enough clever missiles in our Complex Weapons inventory that something should tick the right box without needing to buy something new. We’re doing fairly well at bringing in some commonality and anything Thales/MBDA generally brings in some UK workshare, which is always good.
Let’s not forget that these things can be turned into multi-purpose uses, substituting for other. less mobile weapon systems, e.g. the venerable TOW
“The tube-launched, optically tracked, wireless-guided (TOW) is an anti-tank and precision-assault missile system produced by Raytheon Missile Systems. The capability to fire advanced TOW 2A, TOW 2B, TOW 2B Aero and TOW Bunker Buster missiles makes the TOW one of the best weapon systems in the world.
The TOW missile system is used by more than 40 international military forces and installed on more than 15,000 ground-based and helicopter platforms. The system is widely deployed by the US armed forces on platforms such as Stryker, Bradley and HMMWV armoured vehicles.
The latest TOW missile versions use a radio command link in place of a wire guidance system. The missiles can also be fitted with tandem or explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warheads. The TOW2 missiles are launched from land-based tri-pods, vehicles and helicopters for a maximum range of 4.5km.”
says the army-technology.com
For high-mobility formations these can, indeed, be the only “direct fire” weapons with a longer range (mortars being “luggable” but not exactly direct fire):
http://groundcombatsystems.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/bv206s-swedish-army-armoured-personnel.html
And, also, there are other things to use ATGW for than blowing up tanks – see experience in Afghanistan for the last 12 years. If there aren’t any tanks around, it might be nice to have the ability to blow up, say, a threatening building or bunker from 2000m or more away without having to dismount and set up your Javelin.
Well, that’s true, and there are also times when the anti-missile system is offline, like in a tank laager, so there will be windows of opportunity. Still a pain if your force is designed to be missile heavy though. :(
Obs – like all these things there is always a counter to any capability – consider the ‘MBT is obsolete’ exchange that’s been covered in the past couple of days. Or the ‘Light Armour is useless’ argument that rages constantly. Or the ‘Why bother with land vehicles; helicopters are better at everything use them instead’ theory. Yes the relative supremacy of ATGW has been reduced, but I doubt the anti-missile-missiles are 100% effective, and not every enemy would have every item of armour fitted with active anti-missile measures. So I think there is still room for ATGW even if its not the wonder-weapon it once was.
Nice photo of the Land Rover with the Swingfire.
One of my big worries is that with more anti-missile systems coming out, the effectiveness of missiles may have been blunted badly.
Ignoring long range, heli platform or indirect fire, different requirements and not a substitute, it has be autonomous, ie target acquisition and engagement conducted by the detachment, and instantly available 24×7, in essence a direct fire system, albeit stretching that term a bit. Include remote targeting as with Swingfire but a bit more separation available. It must also use a top attack warhead. Control should be automatic once the target has been designated, ideally after designation the operator would hand off to the msl, but this might be either expensive or vulnerable to jamming depending on the technology used. Range probably doesn’t need to be more than about 8-10km. There’s a bit of trade-off here between missile size and onboard msl stock with a reasonable size vehicle, ie suitable for combat zone use – tracked and simple.
EXACTOR and Brimstone are proven.
LMM is promising but isn’t proven, however how well has HVM performed?
Having looked at some of the systems available and their suitability for vehicle launch, I think Spike/Eurospike has advantages. Rafael is pushing the slightly unusual side-launch system on a Plasan Sandcat: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/924532/1387192495000/large16x9/768/432/south-korea-marine-corp.jpg and has taken an M113 roof-mount version to the odd trade show: http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q716/AndrewJsPhotos/63533253_zps374b70ce.jpg
Back in the late 80s/early 90s the shiny new two-sizes-fit-all missile was TRIGAT (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3659.html) – intended as an infantry weapon (TRIGAT-MR), vehicle launch and helicopter launch (TRIGAT-LR fitted to German Tigers?) It never seemed to gain the market share the developers said it would. Presumably its now part of MBDA’s heritage and may influence their new designs.