Author Topic: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)  (Read 173563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,351
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #225 on: April 03, 2014, 21:39:36 »
Bird_gunner,

I can't quote anything specific from your post as I am still not very good at using this IPAD. 

But a range if 8km seems extremely short, given the weapons that can be launched from opposing aircraft can be launched from a much greater distance?

I agree that the CF NEEDS an AD capability, hands down.  And it doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive or complicated.  A simple, cost effective solution should be relatively easy to find, fund, and field. 

What are your thoughts on a range capability though?  8km seems short.  Even if the CF went with a MANPAD system, would it not be easy to have something with a 20km range to it?  (ADATS was 10km, and that seemed limited too.)

I'm not a SME by any means, curious to hear your opinion on it.

The range of 8km is short, but the effectiveness of the range of the AD system is based on the Line of weapon release of the gun or missile system being utilized (In AD planning, the weapon is more important than the delivery system). So, in planning we would determine, based on the platforms what sort of munition is likely to be used against the assets that we are given as the AD priorities.  We then reverse engineer how we would anticipate the air platform or delivery system to attack our defended assets including weapon stand off ranges (line of weapon release).  We would then ensure that the deployment of the AD systems is far enough forward to intercept the air platform before it reaches the LWR.  If not possible than passive AD measures are recommended.  With C-RAM (and the former 35mm Gun Skyguard) we now have the added capability of engaging munitions with longer stand off ranges improving the overall AD capability.

Further, for the most part, GBAD assets, including SHORAD, MANPAD, and HIMAD (Patriot) will be netted together with Naval and Air Force AD fighters to create an integrated air defence system.  To this end, the Area air defence commander can actively pair targets with the best system for intercept.  For example, fighter against fighter, SHORAD against helicopter and UAS, VSHORAD against aviation or UAS, C-RAM against cruise or ballistic missiles, etc.

 For most conventional PGMs the stand off range is anywhere from 2-10km, with the plane needing to stay, at minimum, 1km off the deck for delivery.  Cruise missiles or HAR missiles can have ranges up to 100's of KM, so C-RAM and gun systems would be more appropriate.  Also, consider the paradigm that to use precision munitions the enemy has to be able to target our asset with a precise grid.  The ability to stop him from gaining this intelligence (via UAS, recce helo, etc) significantly degrades his ability to use long range precision weapons.

As for ranges, there are some AD systems such as SLAAMRAAM that have extended ranges up to 20000m, but most MANPAD systems are limited to the 2-8 km range. A 8 KM missile, for our threat model, with a C-RAM "backstop" would provide the range.  In reality, the system must also be netted into the IADS to be optimally employed, so vehicle mounted systems are preferable.

Mil EME- The British systems tend to be single purpose whereas we would be better with multi-purpose missile system.  For example, the star streak is designed to knock out hinds- it fires 3 hyper sonic darts to puncture the hull.  While effective against this threat it is only minimally effective against air and UAS targets, and has no application against munitions.  The RBS 70, with a proximity fuze, can effectively engage more targets.

The idea of keep a battery of AD in the CS arty regiments is a COA that is being floated.  For example, the C-RAM capability would be kept at 4 GS Regt as the "Div" AD asset with the radars and the MANPAD would be with the CS regiment.  The advantage is that we achieve traditional tiering.  The disadvantages are that AD units have rarely faired well when paired with their Field arty peers (often ending up as driver pool) and that this model takes away operational flexibility to "mix and match" expeditionary capabilities based on the threat or to Force generate AD troops for domestic tasks.  For example, if we deploy in an A-stan scenario than the MANPAD battery in the CS regiment would not deploy with the rest of the regiment, whereas the C-RAM and radars may deploy.  If we create a modularized AD Battery/mini regiment than we can task tailor more effectively and maximize training by not dispersing assets.

What we need is a C-RAM/gun capability and a simple, easy to deploy MANPAD/missile system, not another ADATS. 

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,389
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #226 on: April 03, 2014, 23:18:50 »
For the gun capability would you prefer to see a fixed towed system or something mounted on a vehicle as a SPAAG? Would the MANPADS be AD only or all trades would get training on how to use them? Coming from a CSS unit where we are in charge of rear area security technically by doctrine I'd want to have an asset to protect me from air.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,154
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #227 on: April 03, 2014, 23:19:27 »
I would tend to support the Starstreak SAM as a short range weapon, it has a 6000m range and can cover the distance in @ 5 seconds, SACLOS guidance and laser beam guidance (very hard to jam) and is man portable and also be able to be fired from vehicle mounted posts. Naval and AAM versions have also been developed and demonstrated.

Starstreak should be considered the last or second to last layer of an air defense network (a rapid fire cannon or HMG, or perhaps a variation of stand off systems like Trophy or ARENA would be the final layer), at least for this generation. Solid state lasers with powers of over 100Kw have been demonstrated, so vehicle mounted weapons class lasers for air defense should appear in the near future.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,351
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #228 on: April 04, 2014, 00:26:24 »
I would tend to support the Starstreak SAM as a short range weapon, it has a 6000m range and can cover the distance in @ 5 seconds, SACLOS guidance and laser beam guidance (very hard to jam) and is man portable and also be able to be fired from vehicle mounted posts. Naval and AAM versions have also been developed and demonstrated.

Starstreak should be considered the last or second to last layer of an air defense network (a rapid fire cannon or HMG, or perhaps a variation of stand off systems like Trophy or ARENA would be the final layer), at least for this generation. Solid state lasers with powers of over 100Kw have been demonstrated, so vehicle mounted weapons class lasers for air defense should appear in the near future.

Thuc,

I would disagree with the starstreak as being a good fit for Canada.  The pre-eminent threat from the air is UAS, particularly small and mini.  While mini UAS will likely be a AAAD task due to it's size (with early warning provided to the AAAD unit by the ASCC) SUAS and TUAS will remain GBAD targets along with aviation.  Starstreak, because of it's 3 darts does not offer much of a capability for engaging small targets such as a SUAS, particularly at a range of over 2000m (which by that time the UAS has already likely gotten any info it requires).  The darts seperate and have little surface area, meaning they require a direct hit.  A proximity fuze, such as found on a RBS 70, offers a better hit ratio for smaller targets while having the ability to be set to impact for helicopters and other targets.  Plus, RBS 70 has a range of 8000m and a fully digitized/netted C2 suite (whereas the Brits still use the old Manual early warning system/Bingo for early warning) that can provide the det commander, even when dismounted, with the entire air picture.

For the C-RAM task the future does appear to be DEW, however, guns still have some relevance if helicopters or infantry/armour approach the defended asset... the 35mm were a hell of a direct fire weapon

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #229 on: April 04, 2014, 10:14:35 »
AD detachments using Manpads like the old Blowpipe troops would not be hard to sustain and with simulators being much better nowadays, you can get better practice in without the expense of firing missiles all the time. With the gradual withdraw of the 105mm from Reserves troops, equipping some of them with a light towed gun in a calibre such as 25mm  which can use existing ammo as well as dedicated AD ammo would help build some corporate knowledge about AD into the CF and with minimal training costs and support issues. Some of the Reserves can also be UAV troops using lightweight UAV's and with a small research budget to create new mini-tactical UAV themselves.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,154
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #230 on: April 04, 2014, 10:57:56 »
Throwing out Starstreak because it is small and light enough to be a MANPADS and its high resistance to countermeasures. Not mentioned in the initial post is the high KE punch, Starstreak makes a hell of an field expedient ATGM against the surprise appearance of LAV's, IFV and APC class targets (striking with the energy of a 40mm shell). In an ideal world it could be layered in with other systems like the RBS-70, or perhaps issued with different warheads rather than the three darts.

There really is no one solution to the problem, for us perhaps something like the USMC BLAZER turret on a LAV 3 hull with an updated sensor suite and loading the left pod with Starstreaks and the right pod with RBS-70's, while retaining the 25mm Gatling gun would cover most SHORAD tasks. The Israeli SPYDER system uses two different types of missile on the same launcher for much the same reason, although there is no gun system integrated. (SPYDER is not directly comparable since it covers out to 15 Km).

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,351
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #231 on: April 04, 2014, 12:53:57 »
not that we would ever acquire a Russian system, but the "Pantsyr" AD system the Russians have is quite capable and would in fact meet our needs.

The Pantsyr is employed as a Counter PGM system by the Russians to defend their key assets that they anticipate us using PGMs/cruise missiles against, including AD Radars, C2 nodes, etc based on their lessons learned from the 2 US wars with Iraq.

The system is mounted on a BTR chassis and equipped with short range missiles as well, and is fully network capable

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,812
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #232 on: April 04, 2014, 13:14:55 »
Throwing out Starstreak because it is small and light enough to be a MANPADS and its high resistance to countermeasures. Not mentioned in the initial post is the high KE punch, Starstreak makes a hell of an field expedient ATGM against the surprise appearance of LAV's, IFV and APC class targets (striking with the energy of a 40mm shell). In an ideal world it could be layered in with other systems like the RBS-70, or perhaps issued with different warheads rather than the three darts.

There really is no one solution to the problem, for us perhaps something like the USMC BLAZER turret on a LAV 3 hull with an updated sensor suite and loading the left pod with Starstreaks and the right pod with RBS-70's, while retaining the 25mm Gatling gun would cover most SHORAD tasks. The Israeli SPYDER system uses two different types of missile on the same launcher for much the same reason, although there is no gun system integrated. (SPYDER is not directly comparable since it covers out to 15 Km).

Why does every appreciation jump from manportable to accepting the logistical burden of a 55,000 lb platform to mount equipment that only weighs 1 to 2000 lbs?

You can't get a useful sized force (meaning adequately armed) anyplace in the world in a reasonable time when you make that assumption.  You need ships and months of prep and/or a prepositioned force.  And we're not buying ships that will do that nor do we seem inclined to take half of our vehicle stocks and park them in a warehouse in some one else's country.  And we haven't addressed the cost of supplying diesel and tyres for behemoths of that size.  (And no - a 38,000 lb TAPV does not offer an improvement).

Why don't we start by figuring out how many rounds it takes to defend a given area against a specific type of assault, then work out the lightest tactical carriage for the weapon with ammo,  reduce the crew to 2 and figure out how many we can get into how few aircraft and helicopters?

55,000 lbs and you deliver a 25mm gun with a couple of hundred rounds and a GPMG to the battlefield?  Or an anti-aircraft or anti-tank missile with characteristics not much better than those that can be carried over the shoulder? 

I get the need for protection but lightly armed, heavily protected vehicles, especially in the absence of long range rapid transport, has all the mobility, and strategic utility, of the Maginot line.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,154
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #233 on: April 04, 2014, 22:48:42 »
There are a lot of factors, and of course the CF is missing a lot of the pieces to create a fully integrated system (like transport).

But driving around the battlefield in a vehicle which has different mobility and protection characteristics than the systems you are allegedly protecting will give rise to many other problems. I'm sure that the pending introduction of the TLAV to Infantry battalions will drive that point home for this generation.

Yes, many shoulder fired missiles are man portable, and in many applications missiles like Starstreak can be dismounted for use as a MANPAD as well. But (sticking with the Starstreak for the moment) a vehicle like the Stormer can carry 8 missiles and 8 reloads, so a vehicle crew can prosecute multiple targets and provide persistent coverage. Add a sensor system and linkage to larger systems and the vehicle mounted system becomes far more capable. Using the vehicle to integrate multiple systems (like the Blazer turret with a gun, Starstreak and RBS-70) allows the system to cover a wider range of threats than a single system alone.

I do feel your pain with the size/weight issue of the vehicles themselves, but looking ahead (very far ahead for us, I'm afraid), we can consider the ROK's K-21, which is largely built from composite materials and quite a bit lighter than comparable vehicles like the PUMA. There are reasons to believe that whatever replaces the LAV will be much lighter while having a comparable level of protection.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,351
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #234 on: April 05, 2014, 00:31:51 »
Why does every appreciation jump from manportable to accepting the logistical burden of a 55,000 lb platform to mount equipment that only weighs 1 to 2000 lbs?

You can't get a useful sized force (meaning adequately armed) anyplace in the world in a reasonable time when you make that assumption.  You need ships and months of prep and/or a prepositioned force.  And we're not buying ships that will do that nor do we seem inclined to take half of our vehicle stocks and park them in a warehouse in some one else's country.  And we haven't addressed the cost of supplying diesel and tyres for behemoths of that size.  (And no - a 38,000 lb TAPV does not offer an improvement).

Why don't we start by figuring out how many rounds it takes to defend a given area against a specific type of assault, then work out the lightest tactical carriage for the weapon with ammo,  reduce the crew to 2 and figure out how many we can get into how few aircraft and helicopters?

55,000 lbs and you deliver a 25mm gun with a couple of hundred rounds and a GPMG to the battlefield?  Or an anti-aircraft or anti-tank missile with characteristics not much better than those that can be carried over the shoulder? 

I get the need for protection but lightly armed, heavily protected vehicles, especially in the absence of long range rapid transport, has all the mobility, and strategic utility, of the Maginot line.

The biggest requirement for a vehicle is to ensure that the system has the sensors and data link capability to make it interoperable within the integrated air defence network (multinational, joint service, etc).  For the AD this is more critical than most arms (and this is not a dig) as engagements move immensely quickly.  Imagine, the reaction time for an ADATS det against mid level FAs was 10 seconds with 25 km cueing.  That means if an aircraft picked up in Saint John the Det has a total of 30 seconds from flash to bang. 

The datalink integration, requiring a Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) or EPLRS if there is not integral sensor, is what gives the det the extra time to effectively engage.  Even in cases where the enemy isn't jets but something like a SUAV, the ability to cue from a radar to a dispersed MANPAD det is critical as, in all likelihood, the det cannot physically see the UAV let along engage it.  Finally, for the system to be used effectively, particularly in an ADO environment, it requires integration into the Area Air Defence Commander's Area air defence plan.  Without integration its basically blind.

Vehicles also offer the potential for better FLIR, EO, and passive AD sensor suites that can offer survivability for the det and better engagement accuracy than holding the missile.

PLUS, dismounted doesn't normally offer a Cooker-Boiling Unit and plugging a coffee maker in is next to impossible (unless you deploy to Lawfield shack!).

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,408
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #235 on: April 05, 2014, 00:40:43 »
What is the possibility that any and all RWS through the battlefield could be linked to such a system through EPLRS and a GPS?  Obviously it does nothing for fast air, but it could turn every call sign into a remotely cued gun against helicopters and TUAV.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #236 on: April 05, 2014, 02:06:01 »
What is the possibility that any and all RWS through the battlefield could be linked to such a system through EPLRS and a GPS?  Obviously it does nothing for fast air, but it could turn every call sign into a remotely cued gun against helicopters and TUAV.

- A 'Hammer's Slammer' solution. Might work with beam weapons, but has a serious downside when it starts to empty bins of cased (or even caseless) ammunition that someone needs to fill before taking the next bound. Not to mention crew hydraulic/electric safety issues. I don't need my turret traversing when I am dismounting or mounting - or filling my bins from the last surprise burst.
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,408
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #237 on: April 05, 2014, 05:06:09 »
Obviously, the vehicle crew would have to have some control - approving the fire and disengaging the system completely when it would impede other tasks or be dangerous.

Offline Hudyma

  • Guest
  • *
  • 560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #238 on: October 13, 2014, 02:51:25 »
Was having a chat with a MCpl on my DP1 this summer about Canada's air defense capability.  Is there any hope we will see some incarnation of the ADATs in the near future?

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,408
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #239 on: October 14, 2014, 00:14:36 »
No.

Online Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,351
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #240 on: October 31, 2014, 21:36:52 »
No.

 :( Too much need for pips and crowns I guess. 2019 isn't too far off

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,154
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #241 on: August 13, 2016, 22:58:52 »
Reviving a necrothread because this seems to provide an alternative path for a multi purpose vehicle. The enabler here is the development of a 50mm chaingun, along with advanced ammunition to go along with this. A LAV class vehicle can easily mount the turret, and the crew compartment becomes the ammunition hopper and holds some of the electronics for the GBAD role.

Of course the 50mm cannon can deal out death and destruction to ground targets as well (either AHEAD type programmable ammunition, which is also used for the AA role, or in a dual feed configuration APDSFS or HEAT/MP rounds. The vehicle can carry far more rounds (even 50mm rounds) than a comparable sized vehicle mounting missiles, can engage targets more quickly than the vast majority of missile rounds, and each individual round is cheaper than a missile.

Farther in the future, the same technology being adapted from electromagnetic railguns to make high velocity conventional artillery rounds also works for something like this, if a 155 can potentially fore 70km using this type of aerodynamic ammunition, the range for the 50mm in GBAD ode could also be significantly increased as well.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com./2015/10/antidrone-weapons-50mm-cannon-high.html

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14027hart.pdf
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,154
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #242 on: February 25, 2017, 16:20:19 »
The US Army's SHORAD is being upgraded, but it looks like they have found a much easier and more cost effective idea to get some of the same benefits that the MMEV was supposed to provide. I would imagine this could also be adapted for small diameter artillery rockets or missiles (like the Griffon, perhaps?):

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20170221.aspx

Quote
Air Defense: No Quick Fix For SHORAD

February 21, 2017: The U.S. Army, faced with a renewed Russian threat in Europe and growing use of helicopter gunships by China and UAVs by everyone wants to increase its SHORAD (short-range air defense system) capabilities. SHORAD was much less of an issue after the Cold War ended because the major air threat (the Soviet Union) was gone. Whatever was left could be handled by MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Missile Systems) like Stinger. By 2004 the U.S. Army had only 24 SHORAD batteries (each equipped with 24 Avenger vehicles) and now there are only nine, seven of them in the National Guard.

The Stinger missile is also used by Avenger. These are hummers with a turret mounted on the back. The turret contains two missile pods (each containing four Stingers). Under one pod there is an M3P .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine gun. The weapons operator has use of a FLIR (night vision device) and a laser range finder to locate targets. The machine-gun, however, can't be depressed sufficiently to fire at ground targets towards the front of the vehicle. The missiles have a range of 4.5 kilometers, the machine-gun about half that.

Avenger is a relatively new system, introduced to replace the much older (1960s) Chaparral in the 1990s. The older system was basically an M113 armored vehicle with the top and side armor removed and a launcher holding four early model Sidewinder air-to-air missiles in the rear. These Sidewinders were reconfigured for use from the ground and called MIM-72. The U.S. Army bought 600 Chaparral vehicles from 1969 to 1997. Also mounted on the vehicle were an optical sight for the helping to find and aim (in the general direction of) the target aircraft. The original MIM-72 had a range of 8,000 meters and was still a heat seeking missile. Later versions of the Sidewinder were used and the final version had a range of 10,000 meters and a much more effective heat seeker (able to detect the target from any angle, not just the rear where the hot exhaust was). Chaparral never got much use and was replaced by the Avenger in the United States. Other nations, like Taiwan, still use Chaparral.

Meanwhile the U.S. Army has been developing a new SHORAD internally because it is expected to cost a third of what it would if a defense contractor was used. The new system is the MML (Multi-Mission Launcher) which is fifteen tube launcher mounted on a standard flatbed 6x6 army truck (Medium Tactical Vehicle). The MML cells can fire either a Stinger anti-aircraft missile, a Sidewinder anti-aircraft missile, a Hellfire laser guided missile or any number of future missiles. MML is to be a key component of the IFPC Inc 2-I (Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept) system. This is an air defense system for destroying UAVs and cruise missiles as well as faster moving rockets and artillery/mortar shells. Since some specialized high-speed interceptor missiles have yet to finish development the IHPC won’t be ready for service until the end of the decade. The other components (radar and fire control) will also be truck mounted.

As far as the immediate SHORAD problem is concerned MML may not be the solution, at least in the near term. Right now MML is not ready for production and the major impediment appears to be integrating MML with existing (or planned) radar and security (IFF, Identify Friend or Foe) systems.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,389
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #243 on: May 17, 2017, 01:03:23 »
With the Defense minister saying air defense is one of 18 priority projects, and the fact that the LAV 6.0 chassis was to fix some of the stability issues that really showed up in the LAV III MMEV concept. Could we see the MMEV revived on a LAV 6.0 platform?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 477
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #244 on: May 17, 2017, 11:17:56 »
With the Defense minister saying air defense is one of 18 priority projects, and the fact that the LAV 6.0 chassis was to fix some of the stability issues that really showed up in the LAV III MMEV concept. Could we see the MMEV revived on a LAV 6.0 platform?

I'm thinking to change it to a specific AA system and you probably have a winner.  I would assume a SHORAD for dealing with drones, helos and CAS issues.  Those ADAT systems were pretty expensive, now an orphan system and are probably pretty out of date.  After talking to pilots who went up against it in exercises it was terrifying (one pilot told me, "if they see you, they kill you and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it") but that was before Laser Dazzler defense systems.

But the concept is sound and gives more work to GDLS-London.  At least there would be commonality in training and parts for the drivers and maintainers to some extent.

US marines have an interesting system for the LAV-AD which combines a Gatling gun with stinger or mistral missiles (Blazer AD system).  That might be a place to start, as a gun is cheaper to shoot down smaller drones with then a million dollar missile.  And if you can depress it far enough....

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,812
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #245 on: August 03, 2017, 18:00:24 »
Complementary to a GBAD system - Vehicles with AD systems rather than AT systems


Quote
Laser In Front, Grunts In Back: Boeing Offers Anti-Aircraft Vehicles
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on August 02, 2017 at 1:35 PM



 
Boeing photo
Stryker vehicle armed with anti-aircraft missiles.


ARLINGTON: Need to shoot down Daesh drones or Russian gunships? Boeing is offering the Army an array of ways to do it, from laser-armed 8×8 Strykers to missile-launching MATV trucks and tracked Bradleys.

This September, the Army plans a “shoot off” of competing anti-aircraft systems as it tries to rebuild battlefield air defenses it largely disbanded since 9/11. Boeing’s not the only contender, but it’s been the most aggressive in showing its wares. A new anti-aircraft Stryker will debut at next week’s Space & Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Ala., but that’s just one of several designs they’re prototyping. The aerospace giant has worked with makers of military vehicles – Oshkosh for the MATV, General Dynamics for Stryker, BAE for Bradley — to integrate its weapons systems on their war machines in ways that give the Army multiple options.



Boeing
M-ATV with anti-aircraft missiles.
What the Army wants is Maneuver SHORAD: Short-Range Air Defense systems that can keep up with frontline combat units and survive in combat, unlike Patriot and THAAD batteries, which have longer range but are heavier and are not armored. It particularly wants Maneuver SHORAD it can afford, so installing existing weapons on existing vehicles is a lot more attractive than developing silver bullets from scratch. And, finally, the Army would love vehicles that can both carry SHORAD systems and still fulfill other roles, like troop transport.

Happily for the Army, Boeing and other companies have made laser weapons much more compact. You still need a dedicated vehicle for a 50- to 300-kilowatt weapon suitable for downing helicopters, airplanes, or (at the high end) cruise missiles, but 2- to 5-kW weapons with proven drone-killing capability can fit in existing combat vehicles. The 2 kW laser Stryker that starred in a recent Army exercise has room for several infantryman in back, but that’s a test configuration not optimized to be compact, Leary said: A properly integrated production model could fit a full nine-man squad, same as a regular Stryker.

The whole system – laser, beam director, power and cooling – is so compact you could install it on a wide range of vehicles without crowding out their other missions, Boeing executive Jim Leary told reporters this morning. Most of the time, these laser-accessorized vehicles would just go about their normal roles. But whenever an enemy tried to spy on US units with the kind of low-cost, low-altitude drones that are proliferating rapidly worldwide, there’d be someone around who could laser them out of the sky. That would stop Daesh-style drone attacks in low-tech wars and make it harder for a high-end enemy like Russia to spot targets for airstrikes and artillery.



Army photo
Army laser-armed Stryker at Fort Sill.

Actually shooting down incoming artillery rockets, helicopter gunships, and strike aircraft, however, would require more powerful weapons. For now, that means missiles – although work is progressing rapidly on lasers. The Army’s current air defense vehicle is the Avenger, basically an unarmored Humvee with Stinger missiles mounted in pods, but that vehicle isn’t tough enough and that missile isn’t potent enough for a war with, say, Russia.

So Boeing, which built the original Avenger, is repurposing its turret and fire control to fire other missiles from other vehicles. As we’ve reported, the upgraded system can fire variants of both the Hellfire – made famous by Predator strikes – and the AIM-9X – used on jet fighters. What we haven’t reported in detail before is how it fits on different vehicles. There are tradeoffs.



Boeing photo
Bradley vehicle with anti-aircraft missiles.
Boeing has worked with Oshkosh to install the upgraded Avenger turret on an MATV armored truck – the older brother of the new JLTV – and with General Dynamics to install it on a Stryker. In each case, Leary said, the missiles take up the whole back of the vehicle, replacing the passenger compartment. These would be dedicated anti-aircraft vehicles.

The M2 Bradley is a little different. There the anti-aircraft missiles would replace the TOW anti-tank missiles carried on the side of the turret (and use the same room for reloads), similar to the old M6 Linebacker. The fire control systems would be integrated into those already on the Bradley, Leary said. The anti-aircraft Bradley would retain its 25 mm chaingun, its machineguns, and its capacity to carry infantry, so it could still do all its regular missions except for killing tanks and busting bunkers.

Leary didn’t say this, but it strikes me the Army today has far more ways to kill tanks than to kill aircraft. Converting one Bradley in every four-vehicle platoon would trade a tolerable 25 percent decrease in anti-tank missiles for a new and much needed capacity for air defense – without affecting the number of infantry or scouts. Stryker units and light infantry would still need to spring for dedicated air defense vehicles, but the heavy brigades crucial to any major war would not. US armor bristling with air defense might just make the Kremlin reconsider in a crisis.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/laser-in-front-grunts-in-back-boeing-offers-anti-aircraft-vehicles/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54920210&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--aRFZGNzz2WzGprjHG7SLch6-R8LWO_FTOQvdewFBHea8HcmQZ24jnXV97CSvBSPZdIzGlJP5B

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Online Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,351
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #247 on: August 08, 2017, 19:36:18 »
Complementary to a GBAD system - Vehicles with AD systems rather than AT systems


http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/laser-in-front-grunts-in-back-boeing-offers-anti-aircraft-vehicles/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54920210&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--aRFZGNzz2WzGprjHG7SLch6-R8LWO_FTOQvdewFBHea8HcmQZ24jnXV97CSvBSPZdIzGlJP5B

Room in the back to transport the detachment would be nice. ADATS had up to a 9 pers details and needed a limber vehicle for transport.

Infantry still are not the appropriate combat arm for GBAD for tge many reasons noted in the AD thread.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #248 on: August 09, 2017, 11:12:45 »
I suspect in a decade, lasers will be the AD weapon of choice for small UAV's. Even a 2 minute recharge between burst would likely be acceptable. When Swarms become more common then a mix of gun (40mm with proximity fuzes) and lasers. The benefit of lasers will be lack of falling shell fragments when defending over an urban area, particularly during operations against domestic terror attacks by drone.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,154
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #249 on: August 13, 2017, 16:15:10 »
More on the Boeing/Stryker combination. Mounting this turret on a LAV derivative which uses the bulk of the LAV 6.0 hull, suspension and drivetrain would be the "best" solution for logistical compatibility if Canada were to consider this, although it would be a monster of a vehicle in terms of size and weight:

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/goodbye-mig-boeing-general-dynamics-debut-anti-aircraft-stryker/

Quote
Goodbye, MiG: Boeing, General Dynamics Debut Anti-Aircraft Stryker
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on August 09, 2017 at 11:21 AM

HUNTSVILLE, ALA.: If you fly Russian MiG fighters, Sukhoi attack jets, or Hind helicopters, your life just got a little harder — and in the event of war, potentially much shorter. At the Space & Missile Defense conference here, General Dynamics rolled out the latest variant of their eight-wheel-drive Stryker armored vehicle, with the troop compartment that’s normally in the back replaced with a Boeing-built anti-aircraft turret. Scroll down for our photos of the vehicle, dubbed the Maneuver SHORAD (Short-Range Air Defense) Launcher, or MSL Stryker.

Evolved from the Cold War era Avenger, which mounted Stinger missiles on Humvee, the new turret can mount a wider array of more powerful weapons:

AI-3s, a ground-launched version of the AIM-9 missiles used by US fighters, with significantly better range and maximum altitude than the old Stinger.
Longbow Hellfires, originally an anti-tank missile, made famous as the favored weapon of the Predator drone, and suitable for both ground targets and low-flying aircraft like helicopter gunships.
Hydra 2.75 inch guided rockets;
0.50 caliber machineguns;
and even low-powered lasers capable of burning out quadcopters and other small drones.

The vehicle on display at Huntsville’s Werner von Braun Center mounts Hellfires on one side and AI-3s on the other, as well as a specialized electro-optical sensor on top. But the GD Stryker is just one of a family of anti-aircraft vehicles that Boeing is developing with various partners, as heavy as BAE’s tracked Bradleys and as light as Oshkosh’s Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. A JLTV with anti-aircraft missiles and a machinegun will debut at the enormous Association of the US Army annual conference in Washington, DC this October.

The MSL Stryker’s turret, with two AI-3s (modified AIM-9s) on one side, four Hellfires on the other, and a sensor on top.
The mission for all these vehicles: highly mobile air defense that can keep pace with frontline units and survive in combat zones– what the Army calls Maneuver SHORAD. There’s been no successful airstrike on US Army forces since 1953, when a North Korean biplane flying low and slow slipped through US defenses, Since 1991, the Army has focused on missile defense and disbanded anti-aircraft units, assuming Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots will rule the air and keep enemy aircraft off their backs.

That assumption no longer holds. On the low end, proliferating drones present targets too low and slow for jet fighters to intercept. On the high end, advanced adversaries like Russia and China have developed anti-aircraft missiles that can keep US planes at bay and sophisticated fighters that can challenge US pilots for control of the air. The new threats are driving all of the services to seek countermeasures, especially a new concept for all-service operations known as Multi-Domain Battle.

But we can’t carry out any kind of operations if our forces are bombed and strafed every time they try to move, like the German reinforcements struggling to reach the D-Day beaches in 1944. That’s what Maneuver SHORAD — and the new Stryker vehicle — are all about. If friendly fighters can’t keep enemy aircraft at bay, the ground troops will shoot them down themselves.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 16:18:14 by Thucydides »
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.