• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Stryker MSL SHORAD

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
The MSL system fires the Hellfire missile capable of hitting both air targets and vehicles.The Army lacks a  SHORAD capability. This Stryker variant would fill that gap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1sPfIWe0hI
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
This was in another thread somewhere. The primary advantage I can see in this setup is a much lower CG, making the vehicle much easier to drive and deploy. And a LAV "pickup truck" body might be useful in other configurations as well.

Ah, here it is: https://army.ca/forums/threads/16987/post-1499195.html#msg1499195
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
And going the next step, the US has miniaturized ABM technology in a system similar in intent to "Iron Dome". Costs etc. are not discussed, but if it can be done cheaply enough it will fill a lot of gaps in Western SHORAD or C-RAM coverage:

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/new-defensive-missile-is-like-hitting-a-bullet-with-a-bullet/

New defensive missile is ‘like hitting a bullet with a bullet’
By Ray Bogan February 23, 2018 | 2:18pm | Updated

New defensive missile is ‘like hitting a bullet with a bullet’
The Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) in action during a test Lockheed Martin

A new missile in development that was recently tested in rural New Mexico takes the technology of THAAD (Thermal High Altitude Area Defense), which can knock an intercontinental ballistic missile out of the sky, and puts it into a 5-pound, 2-and-a-half foot projectile.

“It’s a very advanced technology, very complicated rocket science. It’s like hitting a bullet with a bullet,” said Michaela Dodge, a missile defense specialist for the Heritage Foundation. “But we can do it and it’s great news for us.”

The system is called the Miniature Hit to Kill Missile (MHTK), and it’s being developed by Lockheed Martin. The missile travels twice as fast as sound as it hones in on incoming threats and destroys them with kinetic energy. It targets the incoming projectile using a radar system, and continuously adjusts its course in flight.

“We’re making body-to-body contact,” said Chris Murphy, Lockheed Martin’s head of business development for the MHTK. “Instead of getting close to it and making a big explosion, what we do is actually, the nose of our missile hits the part of the incoming round that we want to hit.”

The MHTK is a defensive missile system that is intended to destroy mortars, rockets, artillery and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.Lockheed Martin
When the MHTK makes impact with the incoming round, it causes the threat to explode.

But unlike THAAD, which can destroy missiles carrying nuclear warheads, the MHTK is designed to destroy mortars, rockets, artillery and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

“The US Army and international customers have made it clear today’s global security environment demands agile, close-range solutions,” said Tim Cahill, vice president of Integrated Air and Missile Defense at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

The MHTK is designed for defense, and Murphy said it won’t be used to take out enemy targets.

“The idea is to provide protection from a large area from a launcher or two launchers that can reach out and defeat the incoming rounds before they get anywhere close to our soldiers,” he explained.

Murphy pointed out that a mortar the size of a 2-liter bottle of soda can injure or kill a soldier if it hits within 100 yards.

“The entire missile stays together, and the entire missile is what delivers the lethality or the impact to the incoming round,” he said.

Lockheed Martin hopes the missile will compete for a government contract to be integrated into a larger missile defense system. The MHTK does not yet have a price.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
Legitimate question for someone far smarter than I...but what is the benefit of a "Hit to Kill" solution, compared to a missile that explodes nearby & therefore has less of a chance of missing?

I've always wondered that in the realm of ABM threats also.  When the stakes are so high that missing an incoming missile is truly going to result in the potential loss of tens of thousands of lives, wouldn't it make more sense to have something 'explode' nearby rather than a 'hit to kill' solution that could miss entirely?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,606
Points
1,010
CBH99 said:
Legitimate question for someone far smarter than I...but what is the benefit of a "Hit to Kill" solution, compared to a missile that explodes nearby & therefore has less of a chance of missing?

I've always wondered that in the realm of ABM threats also.  When the stakes are so high that missing an incoming missile is truly going to result in the potential loss of tens of thousands of lives, wouldn't it make more sense to have something 'explode' nearby rather than a 'hit to kill' solution that could miss entirely?

My understanding of the ABM side of the house is that things are happening so fast (the velocities involved are so high) on the actual intercept event that warhead fusing cannot keep up. It is therefore more reliable to attempt a body on body hit.

 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,316
Points
1,160
There's a reason I love Army.ca: smart people asking good questions, and smart people providing (at least some of) the answers.  :salute:
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
SeaKingTacco said:
My understanding of the ABM side of the house is that things are happening so fast (the velocities involved are so high) on the actual intercept event that warhead fusing cannot keep up. It is therefore more reliable to attempt a body on body hit.

This is the largest part of the reason as well as the two missiles hitting each other has a more predictable post collision flight pattern than just being hit by fragmentation. The other concern, particularly with a C-RAM shooter is collateral damage of the fragments that fire out since we often place our bases near urban centres and doctrine says that urban warfare will be a major aspect of warfare. That was one of the major reasons why Canadian FOBs didn't get the CWIS during A-Stan.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Bird_Gunner45 said:
This is the largest part of the reason as well as the two missiles hitting each other has a more predictable post collision flight pattern than just being hit by fragmentation. The other concern, particularly with a C-RAM shooter is collateral damage of the fragments that fire out since we often place our bases near urban centres and doctrine says that urban warfare will be a major aspect of warfare. That was one of the major reasons why Canadian FOBs didn't get the CWIS during A-Stan.

There is also a Probability of Kill issue here as well.  When the defending missile hits a target physically with its own body the probability of critical damage to the enemy missile is near 100%.  The kinetic energy is just too high because of the mass of the defending missile.  Fragmentation heads generally increase the probability of a hit but may not cause enough damage to shoot down the attacking missile.  Especially if it's a dodging plane or large ICBM type.  Actually hitting the target will really do some damage ensuring a kill (if you can hit it).
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Underway said:
There is also a Probability of Kill issue here as well.  When the defending missile hits a target physically with its own body the probability of critical damage to the enemy missile is near 100%.  The kinetic energy is just too high because of the mass of the defending missile.  Fragmentation heads generally increase the probability of a hit but may not cause enough damage to shoot down the attacking missile.  Especially if it's a dodging plane or large ICBM type.  Actually hitting the target will really do some damage ensuring a kill (if you can hit it).

:goodpost:
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,734
Points
1,040
Army arms Bradleys with new weapons to attack enemy helicopters

The Army is arming Bradley Fighting Vehicles with heat-seeking Stinger air defense missiles to give the infantry carriers an improved ability to track and destroy enemy air threats such as drones, helicopters and low-flying aircraft.

Most current Bradleys are armed with TOW anti-tank missiles, a land weapon predominantly used for attacking enemy armored vehicles, bunkers or troop formations. Adding Stinger missiles will increase the attack envelope for the vehicles and potentially better enable them to protect maneuvering infantry and mechanized forces in combat.

“As directed by the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Army is conducting a proof of principle to incorporate Man Portable Air Defense Systems back into the Armored Brigade Combat Teams by modifying two dozen Bradleys to carry Stinger Missiles in lieu of TOW Missiles,” Ashley Givens, spokeswoman for Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Warrior Maven. . . .

More here:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/08/30/army-arms-bradleys-with-new-weapons-to-attack-enemy-helicopters.html

:cheers:
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
In addition to its TOW launcher it is getting stinger missiles to counter low flying helo's and maybe aircraft.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/08/30/army-arms-bradleys-with-new-weapons-to-attack-enemy-helicopters.html
 
Top