Everyone who harps on about USA not having barrel-fired ATGM are terrified that they will actually try
everytime there is a gap like this, America actually tries and then blows the fuck out of russia or whoever the fuck things they can stand up to us
see: ATGM, America produces Javelin
see: Off-bore IR A2A, America produces Aim-9x
see: APS, America produces raytheon quick-kill
see: le-scary anti-shippig missiles, America produces LRASM
how long does this have to go on for?
>>28361968
>how long does this have to go on for?
as long as you will continue with your shitty bait threads
>>28361995
+50 cents
>>28361968
GLATGMs aren't worth it, tango bravo hotel.
They're slower and less effective than modern KEPs while costing more at the same time.
>>28362024
exactly, if America actually makes one it will be ramjet NLOS mach 20 or some shit
>>28362042
>satellite-guided hypersonic non-line of sight gun-launched ATGMs.
the future is now
But America already has rocket-boosted NLOS barrel launched munitions.
see
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition
>September 2006: A U.S. M1 tank fired an MRM-CE round which hit a moving T-72 tank at a range of 8,600 meters
>>28363184
That's pretty fucking neat.
Could the program be revived if needed?
But we did try, OP.
>>28363342
Yes, we still have this technology along with the capability to use STAFF rounds but we don't really have the need.
>>28363342
Considering it died and was reborn three times I doubt it is actually cancelled.
>>28363993
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch of old STAFF rounds in a warehouse somewhere.
>>28363993
Son of STAFF is most likely going to be the A3s big thing.
>>28361968
Barrel-fired missiles are one of the planned additions for the A3 variant of the Abrams, I believe.
>>28362107
>Fuk yo shit rounds
>>28362024
GLATGMs were a way of giving tanks an easier way of figthing ATGM vehicles at range, and giving less modern tanks, anti-tank guns, and infrantry figthing vehicles a way to kill modern tanks
most modern tanks just use KE
Whats the point of firing missiles out of the barrel when you could put em in a VLS
>>28366983
Because they werent supposed to be a thing until 90s
and then USSR collasped
I HIGHLY doubt we will be dumping any more money into Barrel-Fired missiles. There isn't any reason to. There is a reason why Combine Arms Battalions are split into Company Teams.
IE: 2 Tank Platoons
1 Bradley Infantry Platoon.
Even when the A3 comes out the U.S. has shied away from barrel fired missiles simply because there is really no advantage to having them on the tank when if the capability is actually needed you have them readily available.
Don't get me wrong, Brads are still shit, it's just cheaper and easier to do it that way. Not to mention we invested heavily in KE rounds and we've gotten really good at that.
>>28368292
Well the brads still need line of sight for their TOW's
And it's suicide to be going into LOS to a modern enemy tank
With the GSV it looks like the next gen IFV will be just as heavy as an MBT, so at least they won't be shit anymore.
>>28368292
>Even when the A3 comes out the U.S. has shied away from barrel fired missiles
Don't be surprised when the XM1147 turns out to be a guided round.
I just hope it's thermobaric.
>>28368381
Note that modern TOWs have a range of at least 7km.
