It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FINALLY! Abrams gets a laser guided main gun launched ATGM

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Defensenews reports;

Raytheon/ General Dynamics won the competition for a Mid-Range Munition (MRM-CE) contract.


The test firing at the U.S. Army's Yuma, Ariz., Proving Grounds
demonstrated the laser-guided seeker's ability to successfully target,
acquire and track a moving tank and guide the munition to intercept at a
distance of 5.4 miles (8.7 km)


www.prnewswire.com.../www/story/09-25-2006/0004439021&EDATE=Sep+25,+2006




www.defenseindustrydaily.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Since 1966 T64B carried 6 AT-8 Songsters, so finally after 42 years US Army gets a beyond visual range attack capability for its MBT.

Current Russian 9M119M Refleks-M (AT-11 Sniper) maxes out at 6km when guided by the firing tank.

MRM-CE reported 8.7km range actually puts it into a BVR category, so what I would like to know is this – “seeker's ability to successfully target, acquire and track a moving tank”.

Does that mean that the target is painted by the tank that fired the missile or is it the maximum range regardless of the illuminating source?

I though that 5-6km max targeting range had to do with the earth’s curvature/atmospheric distortion and the difficulty of tracking target silhouette from that distance.

This I understand entirely and it makes perfect sense;


In a test firing conducted March 1st, 2007 the MRM-CE fired from an M1A2 Abrams tank demonstrated dual-mode seeker demonstrated its most flexible mode that exploits sensor fusion. During the flight the projectile successfully acquired laser designation and transitioned the tracking function to the imaging infrared sensor against a T-72 tank target. The sensor guided the munition to a direct hit at a distance of 5.2 kilometers (3.5 miles).


www.defense-update.com...

So does “beyond line of sight” means that the target is painted by another designator?


The MRM-CE will be able to engage battlefield targets at extended ranges, including beyond line of sight, autonomously or designated with external laser target designation.




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Well the USA have used a gun fired missile before

www.designation-systems.net...

they even took the system to the first gulf war!



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



Well the USA have used a gun fired missile before


We’re talking about the ones that actually work.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
erm it did work - they used it in 1991

edit: whilst the system wasn`t amazingly good by a long shot - they still deployed it

[edit on 14/1/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



erm it did work - they used it in 1991


No they didn’t.



However, the one active Army M551 unit kept these systems until 1991, and actually deployed during Operation Desert Storm (although no Shillelagh shot was fired).


same source, and more;


From launch until this distance, the MGM-51A flew below the line-of-sight of the tracking system's infrared beam and could therefore not be guided. Because the minimum range was slightly above the maximum effective range of the M551 Sheridan's conventional unguided munition, this created a dangerous "dead range" for the AFV. A Shillelagh missile was also rather expensive compared to conventional anti-armour rounds.


same source.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
*sigh* we are back to your opinion again - the minimum range was 750 meters but lets quote the line above your quote


Although strictly a short range (2000 m (6600 ft) max) line-of-sight weapon, the MGM-51A Shillelagh was an accurate missile even against moving targets


oh hark - it was effective against moving vehicles.

same source



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



oh hark - it was effective against moving vehicles.


Which didn’t have IR projector/searchlight, (L2G).



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
it was designed during the 1950`s , deployed in the 60`s , upgraded in the 70`s and finally went out of service in the 1990`s - it`s also of the same generation as the 9K112 Kobra -with similar capabilities.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



it`s also of the same generation as the 9K112 Kobra -with similar capabilities.


Not really.

Kobra - SACLOS guidance and a radio-frequency guidance link, max range 4 km, the missile is guided automatically to the target by keeping the cross-hairs on the target.

Shillelagh – max range 2 km,

For the time of flight of the round, the gunner had to keep the cross-hairs pointed at the target. A missile tracker in the gunner's sight detected any deviation of the flight path from the line-of-sight to the target, and transmitted corrective commands to the missile via an infrared command link.


Infrared link was easily detected and jammed by IR projectors.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a white noise jammer could jam the kobra - a moot point as tanks in the 60`s and 70`s didn`t usually carry IR lights or jammers , were talking T62`s , Centurion/Chieftan and M60/A1pattons here

Semi-Automatic Command to Line of Sight - boh are that - one uses raido the other uses IR.

ergo - similar capabilities.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



a white noise jammer could jam the kobra


White noise jammer? Never heard of that one. What was the designation of the unit?


- a moot point as tanks in the 60`s and 70`s didn`t usually carry IR lights or jammers , were talking T62`s , Centurion/Chieftan and M60/A1pattons here


Nope, T64 - L2G IR projector.


Semi-Automatic Command to Line of Sight - boh are that - one uses raido the other uses IR.

ergo - similar capabilities.


Nope,

Kobra - range 4km, speed 400 m/s. Warhead weight - 4,5 kg penetration 700 to 800 mm of RHA. Total weight - 37,2 kg

Shillelagh – range 2km, speed 292 m/s, Warhead weight - 6.8 kg, penetration - ? Total weight – 26.7 kg.

Sheridan verses T64, are you kidding me? Sheridan verses T-55 is not happening either.

WWII era tanks can wipe the floor with the Sheridan.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
`Similar` does not mean `the same` - it means they offer comparable capabilities but with differences - so you can state your opinion of it being `nope` but they are similar, the Kobra has longer range , the Shillelagh had a bigger warhead - the main `in service version` was the MGM-51B/C with a longer range anyway ; out to 3km`s source


The Sheridan was based upon the M60A1 Patton , the US stalwart of the cold war , which is comparable to the T62/T64 - heck even the T72 is some sources are to be believed


so they are comparable systems ; its just whilst the russians went on the develope `Sniper` many years later , the US ignored the system for the 120mm DU `Silver Bullet` and are only now coming back to it.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
whoo hoo!
lets party.
now an even better way to kill,kill,kill
even better lets invite the kids to play with new
modfied tank toys they they too can
imagine killing so efficiently.. yummy yummy,,,more death,,,

WHAT DO YOU MEAN FINALLY ???????

are you all saying this is good? this is a good thing?

cause if thats what your saying then.

What is wrong with people.

PEACE not WAR
LOVE not HATE
its not that hard to remember, then how come we keep
getting it wrong?

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Maya432]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
maya i wish i could share your optimism for the human race.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 



PEACE not WAR
LOVE not HATE
its not that hard to remember, then how come we keep
getting it wrong?


While I share your enthusiasm, the harsh reality is that diplomacy with out arms is like an orchestra with out instruments.

It you don’t have the toys, the boys that do will simply roll right over you and you’re desired for peaceful coexistence in synergy of love and etc.

Just remember the days when gents were schooled from their childhood how to defend them selves, be it a cane sword or a pistol, because simple logic dictates that even an intellectual will one day have to fight in order to defend him self.

I like to ponder, philosophize, read, write, poetry, music, theater, etc, but at the same time if I have to defend my self I can put a 9mm bullet in your pelvis (and not the vest) from some good 30 meters away while on the move, or if it’s close and personal cut the tendons of your limbs.

It’s just life, my War and Peace is weakness and strength, because it always takes a lot more strength to make peace then war, but when it’s the time of war, aim low, hit first and hit hard with out hesitation.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 


You're ignoring the fact that there will always be humans that wish to wrong other humans, with whom you cannot talk your problems out.
It is unrealistic to think human nature will ever change. There are evil men(and women) in this world, that need to be stood up to. One should be happy that there are means available to the good guys to minimize their losses, while being able to defeat their enemy. No one here is glorifying death, but as General Patton said- "the object of war is not to die for one's country, but to make the other SOB die for his." Anything that helps save friendly lives is a good thing in my book.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join