RedMercury
Junior Member
Just that... funny muzzle baffles. Maybe a new muzzle brake design. Can't really confirm until it's offered for export...
Ideal PLA Ground Based Air Defence (SAM etc)??????
- Thread starter planeman
- Start date
Something that really impressed me that I saw on Future Weapons (Discovery channel) was a small US close/medium support missile that could be fired from uncrewed remote launchers, that were just placed on a pallet (or vehicle) and fired remotely. The missiles were quite small (much too small for a medium range SAM IMO) but the idea of just leaving crew-less launchers dotted around your back yard and then firing them remotely really appeals - for a start the launcher could be much nearer the target than the sensing radar. Imagine how much harder a time NATO would have had in the Balkans if there Serbs could have separated the radar/sensor from the launcher by a matter of miles.
I'd view the remotely fired crewless pallet as one of several launching options for the medium range missile (part of a short/medium/long/ABM family). The missiles would be either active radar or IIR seeking, fired in LOAL (lock on after launch), and ramjet powered - so pretty expensive - but also much more effective.
But there are some issues with remote pallet launch:
a) Sustained availability. On battery power alone the launcher would probably only be 'ready to fire' for maybe a day or two(?). You could fit it with seriously heavy duty batteries, but plugging it in to a petrol generator (trailer mounted?) would extend the deployment. But generators must have a big heat signature, so battery alone is more covert. Batteries perform less well in extreme climates so location may be a factor.
b) Disguise. This is its real strength; the pallet can be camouflaged, draped in radar-absorbent cloth etc. Pre-prepared disposals are not needed although relatively flat and vehicle accessible terrain is. The launching pallet doesn't have to be completely level as the missile would be self-righting after launch.
c) Communication. There would be several options, but the launcher would always be fired by command - not a self-contained fully autonomous "CIWS" style set-up. Wireless radio is an obvious choice but for superior EW defence a cable (FO?) could be laid between the launcher and an underground/landline interface. Messages would have to be encrypted and dummy runs of spoofing etc practiced. The launcher would have some self-diagnosis reporting so that the command units would know exact location and availability.
d) I'm thinking hot-launch via launching rocket as that is technically simpler than cold-launch. But it might be a problem for a vehicle mounted VLS version - at any rate the medium missile is 4~5m long.
Sound like a plan?
I'd view the remotely fired crewless pallet as one of several launching options for the medium range missile (part of a short/medium/long/ABM family). The missiles would be either active radar or IIR seeking, fired in LOAL (lock on after launch), and ramjet powered - so pretty expensive - but also much more effective.
But there are some issues with remote pallet launch:
a) Sustained availability. On battery power alone the launcher would probably only be 'ready to fire' for maybe a day or two(?). You could fit it with seriously heavy duty batteries, but plugging it in to a petrol generator (trailer mounted?) would extend the deployment. But generators must have a big heat signature, so battery alone is more covert. Batteries perform less well in extreme climates so location may be a factor.
b) Disguise. This is its real strength; the pallet can be camouflaged, draped in radar-absorbent cloth etc. Pre-prepared disposals are not needed although relatively flat and vehicle accessible terrain is. The launching pallet doesn't have to be completely level as the missile would be self-righting after launch.
c) Communication. There would be several options, but the launcher would always be fired by command - not a self-contained fully autonomous "CIWS" style set-up. Wireless radio is an obvious choice but for superior EW defence a cable (FO?) could be laid between the launcher and an underground/landline interface. Messages would have to be encrypted and dummy runs of spoofing etc practiced. The launcher would have some self-diagnosis reporting so that the command units would know exact location and availability.
d) I'm thinking hot-launch via launching rocket as that is technically simpler than cold-launch. But it might be a problem for a vehicle mounted VLS version - at any rate the medium missile is 4~5m long.
Sound like a plan?
I think for logistic reasons it might be an option to disperse whole SAM batteries (over tens of miles) and just leave the radar passive. Equip the command post with datalinks and introduce some kind of cooperative engagement capability. AWACS or other ground based radars can deliver air pictures.
In single SAM batteries the launchers could be dispersed over 2 miles and connected via cable.
In single SAM batteries the launchers could be dispersed over 2 miles and connected via cable.
I think the MBDA VL-Mica and Israeli Spyder (Python-5/Derby) SAM system have separate truck launcher and sensor vehicle:
As for the 76mm CIWS... I think if 35mm w/AHEAD ammo can do the job, it's probably better to go with a smaller caliber, and leave the long-range interception to SAMs. The 76mm looks too top heavy.
As for the 76mm CIWS... I think if 35mm w/AHEAD ammo can do the job, it's probably better to go with a smaller caliber, and leave the long-range interception to SAMs. The 76mm looks too top heavy.
Last edited:
My mind has been focusing on the medium range SAM, something in generally the same engagement envelope as the SA-11/17, Aster or early version of Patriot/S-300.
I'm still favouring IIR/AR seekers over the cheaper SARH/CI (command intercept) types, so this is like Aster or L-AMRAAM. The missile would be ramjet powered.
Such a missile would have to be about 4.5m long (slightly bigger than the PL-12, but smaller than the SA-17). See rough comparison below, my SAM being the bottom one below AA-10 Alamo and SA-11/17:
The AR seeker would be straight off the PL-12, and IIR seeker a new type (PL-8 is too old). As a contingency the missiles could engage using datalinked CI, but in the normal operation the missile would be launched under CI and then lock on after launch. The CI would be one-way, the missile would not send any data back, instead relying on its own computer to intercept.
I'm still keen on the VL pallet idea, but for mobile units advancing with troops an on-board targeting radar (with secondary search capability) and the ability to fire and move is vital, as is high mobility. So a tracked vehicle, although more expensive, would be worth it.
Because the missile is 4.5m long, VL is not viable. Plus the missile is hot launched which would add another complication in a layout like the SA-15. So slant launch is needed, and the layout ends up looking a lot like the SA-11/17 family, but with 6 boxed missiles and a phased array radar.
I'm still favouring IIR/AR seekers over the cheaper SARH/CI (command intercept) types, so this is like Aster or L-AMRAAM. The missile would be ramjet powered.
Such a missile would have to be about 4.5m long (slightly bigger than the PL-12, but smaller than the SA-17). See rough comparison below, my SAM being the bottom one below AA-10 Alamo and SA-11/17:
The AR seeker would be straight off the PL-12, and IIR seeker a new type (PL-8 is too old). As a contingency the missiles could engage using datalinked CI, but in the normal operation the missile would be launched under CI and then lock on after launch. The CI would be one-way, the missile would not send any data back, instead relying on its own computer to intercept.
I'm still keen on the VL pallet idea, but for mobile units advancing with troops an on-board targeting radar (with secondary search capability) and the ability to fire and move is vital, as is high mobility. So a tracked vehicle, although more expensive, would be worth it.
Because the missile is 4.5m long, VL is not viable. Plus the missile is hot launched which would add another complication in a layout like the SA-15. So slant launch is needed, and the layout ends up looking a lot like the SA-11/17 family, but with 6 boxed missiles and a phased array radar.
Last edited:
Skywatcher
Captain
Planeman: Interesting concept, but wouldn't TVC on the SAM be a better solution that those "potato masher" fins?
For a missile system of that category, I would divide the radar from the launcher. Six 4,5m missiles and a radar would make for a rather big vehicle wich is less mobile and harder to hide, plus you'd loose too much with one vehicle destroyed. Maybe you could offer it in a wheeled version also.
That missile would offer a rather great envelope for a medium range AAM, because of the ramjet. It would of course need a rocket booster, maybe that one could be equipped with TVC to quickly turn to the target from a slant launch.
IIR or ARH require the missile to do the computing itself making it rather expensive. I think different options for a otherwhise identical missile would be ideal, to have a good mix.
That missile would offer a rather great envelope for a medium range AAM, because of the ramjet. It would of course need a rocket booster, maybe that one could be equipped with TVC to quickly turn to the target from a slant launch.
IIR or ARH require the missile to do the computing itself making it rather expensive. I think different options for a otherwhise identical missile would be ideal, to have a good mix.
TVC is great for short range missiles that need to turn sharply almost immediately after launch, but TVC stops working once the missile's engine has run out of fuel, and reduces the effective thrust of the missile.
In my pics the rocket booster is inside the engine, like on the Meteor etc. My reasoning was to reduce overall length.
Re separation of sensors from launchers - the advantage is survivability, but the cost is inability to function is the connectivity is lost. For mobile units firing on the move, you can't have cable connections, so you have to use radio waves which increases the chances of enemy EW blinding your launchers. So putting a radar on the missile launcher is a good idea. But, yes it does up the wager.
In my pics the rocket booster is inside the engine, like on the Meteor etc. My reasoning was to reduce overall length.
Re separation of sensors from launchers - the advantage is survivability, but the cost is inability to function is the connectivity is lost. For mobile units firing on the move, you can't have cable connections, so you have to use radio waves which increases the chances of enemy EW blinding your launchers. So putting a radar on the missile launcher is a good idea. But, yes it does up the wager.
