"Tanks" with Vertical Launch ATGMs

eshelon

eshelon

unconventional solutions
Joined
11 July 2012
Messages
98
Reaction score
111
1. (BAE) Charger
2. on Project 299 tank chassis
3. unidentified
4. ?
 

Attachments

  • bae systems charger.jpg
    bae systems charger.jpg
    30.4 KB · Views: 1,678
  • 299_VLM.jpg
    299_VLM.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 1,699
  • missile + gun combination.jpg
    missile + gun combination.jpg
    48.2 KB · Views: 1,651
No. 4. (and 5., 6. ...) = possible other concepts/projects. List is open.
 
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
 
4. NetFires (early Future Combat Systems vision)
5. ?
- - - -
Jemiba, no turnable (more than 1-missile) launcher = lighter vehicle. Also quicker reaction on enemy vehicles spaced around (simultaneous attack).
 

Attachments

  • fcs_netfires.jpg
    fcs_netfires.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 1,641
Jemiba said:
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
Click to expand...

Plus with US Army going to fewer soldiers you have an excess of vehicles with 'empty' back ends and no soldiers to fill them. Why not add vertical launch cells. Seems like a creative and efficient use for left over Bradley's, etc.
 
bobbymike said:
Jemiba said:
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
Click to expand...

Plus with US Army going to fewer soldiers you have an excess of vehicles with 'empty' back ends and no soldiers to fill them. Why not add vertical launch cells. Seems like a creative and efficient use for left over Bradley's, etc.
Click to expand...

A Striker/Bradley with a back end full of antitank-sized "Quick Kill" missiles. . .
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Jemiba said:
I'm not quite sure about the benefits. It lowers the silhouette, ok, but doesn't it use up more
internal volume, than a turnable launcher, so reducing overall versatality of the vehicle ?
Click to expand...

Plus with US Army going to fewer soldiers you have an excess of vehicles with 'empty' back ends and no soldiers to fill them. Why not add vertical launch cells. Seems like a creative and efficient use for left over Bradley's, etc.
Click to expand...

A Striker/Bradley with a back end full of antitank-sized "Quick Kill" missiles. . .
Click to expand...

Especially if those missiles far 'outgun' the main gun of MBT.

I could imagine in the future where an enemy brigade on the other side of a ridgeline is being watched and targeted by a Fire Scout UAV, maybe even a high flying stealthy ISR platform (or similar system) that sends data back to a bunch of Strikers loaded with 10+ ATGMs. Minutes later a soldier in that brigade says, "Hey what are all those contrails coming over the ridgeline?"

Kind of like this ;D

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC1Qob27sM
 
5. M113+FOG-M (source: Popular Mechanics July 1985)
 

Attachments

  • FOG-M M113.jpg
    FOG-M M113.jpg
    95.7 KB · Views: 2,335
AdKEM (From AIAA 92-2761)
 

Attachments

  • AdKEM.jpg
    AdKEM.jpg
    323.6 KB · Views: 701
  • AdKEM 2.jpg
    AdKEM 2.jpg
    212.4 KB · Views: 703
sferrin said:
AdKEM (From AIAA 92-2761)
Click to expand...

1400 GEEEEEEESSSS!!! Awesome I love rocket tech. IMHO there seems to be so many solid rocket missile tech applications that the US could use to increase under armed platform firepower.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
AdKEM (From AIAA 92-2761)
Click to expand...

1400 GEEEEEEESSSS!!! Awesome I love rocket tech. IMHO there seems to be so many solid rocket missile tech applications that the US could use to increase under armed platform firepower.
Click to expand...

1400 Gs "axial acceleration". I think that means rolling acceleration as the missile rotates around it's axis. It has +50 Gs vertical and horizontal acceleration which is more than adequate.
 
Axial acceleration refers to acceleration along the long axis of the projectile; if they meant rotation, they'd have said angular acceleration. The stated acceleration from near rest to Mach 6 (roughly 2000 m/sec) in 0.4 seconds implies an average acceleration during the motor burn of around 500 g. Peak acceleration might well be much higher.
 
moin1900 said:
Hi
Aero-Detroit Inc. MBT-70 concepts ?
http://www.mmowg.net/adi-usa-unpublished-old-tank-concepts/

MBT-70 concepts Turret and Casemate
http://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/5394455.html?page=1
Click to expand...

Second link.
 
This is how I kind of expected the BAe Merlin mortar bomb to be deployed in preloaded tubes on the back of an afv.
 
Another advantage of smart munitions is that you can use them for top-attack. Most AFVs have thin roofs ... much easier to penetrate than glacier plates.

As for the suggestion about multiple sub-munitions ... that is what you fire against infantry.
OTOH multiple top-attack, sub-munitions make it impossible to dig-in towed artillery. Even if the gun is well dig-in, stored ammo is still at risk from light (40mm) explosives.
 
Thought the attached was in this thread already. H/t Kat Tsun. Originally via the Gur Khan Attacks blog.
 

Attachments

  • Object-299-1024x659.jpg
    Object-299-1024x659.jpg
    169.6 KB · Views: 982
With regards as to FOG-M (h/t RLBH):
RLBH said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?
Click to expand...
The notional divisional FAADS battalion seems to have had three 'heavy' batteries with one platoon of six FOG-M launchers and two platoons of six ADATS Bradleys, one battery to accompany each brigade in the forward area, and one 'light' battery with three platoons of twelve Avengers for rear area defence.

Alongside that, there was to have been a divisional anti-tank battalion with 36 FOG-M launchers which could carry out air defence fires as a secondary mission. When this was being discussed, the FOG-M launcher for the heavy division looks to have had twelve cells on an MLRS-based chassis.
Click to expand...

fogm-hfu-png.610773
 
Last edited:
1. FOG (missile) Heavy on MLRS chassis (Ligth was on Humvee).
source: Field Artillery December 1989
2. Missile-in-a-Box (NETFIRES) module for SEP (Splitterskyddad EnhetsPlattform).
3. BAE tank concept.
 

Attachments

  • FOG-Heavy.jpg
    FOG-Heavy.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 660
  • sep_modules.jpg
    sep_modules.jpg
    72.4 KB · Views: 635
  • bae tank concept.jpg
    bae tank concept.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 858
proposed Advanced Close-Combat System with vertically launched Tank Breakers
 

Attachments

  • Tank Breaker vertical.jpg
    Tank Breaker vertical.jpg
    202.1 KB · Views: 503
  • Tank Breaker vertical_.jpg
    Tank Breaker vertical_.jpg
    161.8 KB · Views: 530
Israel's vehicle-mounted Spike NLOS is about as close as we have come to it IRL. While it is not VL, it can fire at unseen targets as it's FO guided with a imaging seeker in the nose.

The only "Tank" that it is in (IIRC) is the modded M60 Pereh.


tumblr_okxwxtLZrZ1rqpszmo5_1280.jpg
 
JohnR said:
This is how I kind of expected the BAe Merlin mortar bomb to be deployed in preloaded tubes on the back of an afv.
Click to expand...

It's kind of strange how BAe Merlin just seems to have faded away.....
Is Merlin still even in the British Army inventory?

Regards
Pioneer
 
From Star 21 Army report
 

Attachments

  • ADKEM1.jpg
    ADKEM1.jpg
    158.8 KB · Views: 329
  • ADKEM2.jpg
    ADKEM2.jpg
    66.7 KB · Views: 280
  • ADKEM3.jpg
    ADKEM3.jpg
    92.1 KB · Views: 268
  • ADKEM4.jpg
    ADKEM4.jpg
    108 KB · Views: 247
  • ADKEM5.jpg
    ADKEM5.jpg
    155.6 KB · Views: 231
Notice the 100km goal. Quite a bit of recon in that time.
 

Attachments

  • Longfog1.jpg
    Longfog1.jpg
    23.9 KB · Views: 244
  • Longfog2.jpg
    Longfog2.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 283
  • Longfog3.jpg
    Longfog3.jpg
    119.5 KB · Views: 281
  • Longfog4.jpg
    Longfog4.jpg
    104.9 KB · Views: 264
  • Longfog5.jpg
    Longfog5.jpg
    84.8 KB · Views: 225
  • Longfog6.jpg
    Longfog6.jpg
    93.6 KB · Views: 243
LONGFOG only demonstrated 40 km payout with the bobbin (there were flight tests with an F-16A at Eglin in '98 or '99), but 100 km could be fairly easily achieved I guess. MRDEC/Redstone was only confident in quoting 75 km as being easy though.

It's not the same as FOG-M, though. FOG-M was an anti-aircraft missile from the 1980s with no serious relation to LONGFOG (it's not even the same company, FOG-M was Boeing who let it tank; EFOG-M was Hughes who did a fair job but it got killed by LOSAT; and LONGFOG was originally Williams, then Allison, who just made the turbojet while the Army did everything else in-house and LONGFOG definitely lasted longer than the others besides it wasn't killed until the oughties and turned into NETFIRES/NLOS-LS), besides the guidance method, the laptop/ground control station used, and possibly the general aerodynamic layout (assuming the cruciform missile had been procured instead of the Army's preferred stealth design). Everything else was new. As far as timelines go it's something like this:

1984-1990: FOG-M
1994-1998 (2002 as an ATD): EFOG-M
1990-1999: LONGFOG

So, FOG-M was a rocket with a very small Williams turbojet that flew maybe a dozen km to swat a helicopter out of the sky or sometimes a tank. Compared to LONGFOG it was about half the size and didn't even share the same launcher, since FOG-M was originally going to be mounted in an M113A3 and later they switched it to a M993/Bradley chassis, then the program died.EFOG-M and LONGFOG were going to be put on Humvees. So LONGFOG was big. Really big. About twice as big as FOG-M/EFOG-M, which were much closer in relation to each other than LONGFOG to either. Later, Williams tried to make a LONGFOG motor direct from the FOG-M/EFOG-M sustainer, but it was too weak and puny so Redstone went to Allison and asked them to make a turbojet instead and it was better, faster, and more fuel efficient.

As for LONGFOG, it's mostly a Koksan/Smerch buster.
 
Kat Tsun said:
LONGFOG only demonstrated 40 km payout with the bobbin (there were flight tests with an F-16A at Eglin in '98 or '99), but 100 km could be fairly easily achieved I guess. MRDEC/Redstone was only confident in quoting 75 km as being easy though.

It's not the same as FOG-M, though. FOG-M was an anti-aircraft missile from the 1980s with no serious relation to LONGFOG (it's not even the same company, FOG-M was Boeing who let it tank; EFOG-M was Hughes who did a fair job but it got killed by LOSAT; and LONGFOG was originally Williams, then Allison, who just made the turbojet while the Army did everything else in-house and LONGFOG definitely lasted longer than the others besides it wasn't killed until the oughties and turned into NETFIRES/NLOS-LS), besides the guidance method, the laptop/ground control station used, and possibly the general aerodynamic layout (assuming the cruciform missile had been procured instead of the Army's preferred stealth design). Everything else was new. As far as timelines go it's something like this:

1984-1990: FOG-M
1994-1998 (2002 as an ATD): EFOG-M
1990-1999: LONGFOG

So, FOG-M was a rocket with a very small Williams turbojet that flew maybe a dozen km to swat a helicopter out of the sky or sometimes a tank. Compared to LONGFOG it was about half the size and didn't even share the same launcher, since FOG-M was originally going to be mounted in an M113A3 and later they switched it to a M993/Bradley chassis, then the program died.EFOG-M and LONGFOG were going to be put on Humvees. So LONGFOG was big. Really big. About twice as big as FOG-M/EFOG-M, which were much closer in relation to each other than LONGFOG to either. Later, Williams tried to make a LONGFOG motor direct from the FOG-M/EFOG-M sustainer, but it was too weak and puny so Redstone went to Allison and asked them to make a turbojet instead and it was better, faster, and more fuel efficient.

As for LONGFOG, it's mostly a Koksan/Smerch buster.
Click to expand...
Are there any pics of M993/Bradley chassis FOG-M/EFOG-M?
 
1. Chinese answer to NLOS-LS
with CM-501GA missile (40 km range) or CM-501XA loitering munition (30 minutes, 70 km range)
2. JAGM JQL on ground vehicle (JLTV)
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    128.3 KB · Views: 223
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    45.8 KB · Views: 271
I’ve always looked at all that top surface area of many AFVs and thought vertical launched missiles seem like such a no-brainer.
 
In 1962, the US Armor Association launched a competition for the design of a next generation of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) to replace the M60 Gun Tank in light of advanced Soviet vehicles which were being developed. The goal was to gather ideas as to how people thought the tanks of 1965-1975 might look and left the various designers a lot of freedom in terms of armament and propulsion. Many designs were sent in from around the world but one very close to home came from a serving US soldier, David Bredemeir, based at Fort Knox, the home of the US School of Armor at the time. This design was to eschew conventional suspension, layout, and armament and produce a missile carrier capable of destroying any future Soviet threat. Named the ‘M-70’ (no connection to the MBT-70), presumably for the anticipated in-service date, this vehicle provides a semi-professional glimpse at some of the thinking of the era.
Click to expand...

Tank Encyclopedia: M-70 MBT (1962)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouGpFrnrOKQ
 
This sentence is a little odd: "It was never to work satisfactorily for that tank and the M-70 offered little to warrant development."
Especially since the Sheridan tank gun launcher (M81 series) was a totally different system from the missile system proposed for the M-70.

On a side note, I suspect that the M-70 missile was a planned US development of the British Swingfire missile that was being seriously looked at the time by the U.S. Army. Alas that ended up dying to McNamara (including his idiotic distain for tactical nukes) as well as the 'Not invented here' syndrome in general.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom