Looks like America is resuming tactical air defence. Fires Sidewinders, Stingers, smaller interceptors being developed and hell, Hellfires too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3buvu4hK8oU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdVWFXWT8-Y
Couldn't they just adapted the mlrs to fire SA missles.
Add a radar/control trailer or truck and your set.
>>29487648
No no no
The idea is to spend as much money as possible
>>29487237
WTF? Isnt this what 14S(manpads) and Avengers are for? Why do we need to spend more cash on another system that literally does the same thing as another proven technology? And if you think there is such a critical need for SHORAD just bring back the goddamn linebackers(Bradley with stinger package mounted)
>>29487887
No, Sidewinders boast 7 times more range and have been there since late 50s.
>>29487237
I thought air superiority were Americas air defence?
>>29487237
yfw 14 hellfires launched simultaneously on one target
>>29487648
oh fuck me, the mental image of some MLRS just unleashing 20-30 Sidewinders just gave me a massive hard-on...
>>29487237
we need close in AA such as ZSU-34 esque system and a better rolling sam systm like Buk or Strela 10
>Stingers
WOW
ITS
FUCKING
NOTHING
Why don't they just build the MMEV instead? Only difference is its on a LAV III chassis.
>>29487899
Yes but do we really need that niche where sidewinders are of most utility fulfilled? RW, UAV and TBM are perfectly countered by stingers. Anything requiring that much further or higher and your entering the realm of theatre air defense weapons systems or air force territory. Stingers can be manpads, mounted on Humvees or Bradleys. Do we really need an entire weapon system for a niche that doesn't really exist on the battlefield?
>>29487919
Stingers for helos, Sidewinders for planes, Hellfires for everything else.
>>29487968
Uavs are now flying outside of the stingers envelope. Optics has pushed them that high.
What's wrong with the M270?
Does it not have AA capabilities?
The one in OPs pic looks like it's easier to load but I'm no expert
>>29488049
No.
Lurk more
>>29488051
Couldn't they just... give AA capabilities to m270s instead of spending even more money?
It's like saying "oh my car stereo only takes cassettes, I'll need to buy a new car so I can play CDs"
>>29488090
No. MML can carry 4 to a box and uses existing patriot missle launchers.
>>29487237
>Hellfire
Why don't you cunts buy Brimstone already?
>>29488090
>>29487648
Nope. The MML is built from the ground up to provide air defence/CRAM protection and indirect fire support.
It's like asking to refit the Paladin chassis and turret with a 120mm gun and call it a tank.
>>29488128
The Poms are pushing hard but LM is too far ahead with the JAGM that the Brimstone has been practically shut off from the US market.
![1024px-CATM_120C_AMRAAM_p1230119[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0llhIhZ.jpg "1024px-CATM_120C_AMRAAM_p1230119[1].jpg")
car+amraam+modified artillery radar=top notch aa system
>>29487656
It's a wheeled commercial truck chassis that fires a modular container box that can integrate 3 very different missile systems.
It's super cost effective, moron.
Question.
What kind of Hellfire is that and how is it guided? I didn't notice any sensors on the truck launcher itself.
>>29488128
Because hellfires kill things just as well and are already budgeted for.
>>29488289
There's NASAMS in service with quite a few countries from Kongsberg.
Both fixed and truck mounted.
>>29488349
The sensors don't need to be on the truck.
>>29487648
>>29488049
M270's are significantly larger/heavier than a FMTV truck and have fired AMRAAM's.
>>29487656
The idea is a platform that can fire any small missile, but you knew that and were just shitposting.
>>29488090
MML is cheaper than buying more MLRS.
Yes you would have to buy more MLRS if you started using them as air defense.
>>29487968
>>29488289
No. There is a gap between Stingers/Avengers (mainly for point defence) and PAC-3, which is designed for strategic air defence. The military realized this for quite a long time and several gap fillers have been developed.
So far NASAM (which is basically a SAM version of AMRAAM) is used for medium range air defence. Right now the job is to make make a SHORADS, which has higher range and ceiling between VSHORADS and MR SAM
>>29488685
It seems that the american is too overly reliant on Patriots to completely ignore other types of air defences
>>29488705
Right conclusion, wrong reasoning. They rely on air power for air defense, not Patriots.
>>29488705
Look at the map. Unlike USSR/russia and China, the US doesn't share any immediate borders its enemy, so the only thing that can seriously hit american soil is either a ballistic missile or a long range bomber
>inb4alaska
>>29487237
Not just tactical air defense. Fucking everything. They want to be able to toss whatever the fuck they want into this. This goes from air defense to anti-tank missiles, and I've even heard that they want to put anti-ship missiles into them as well. By adopting this one platform, the Army will have something which can do just about anything, providing you put the right missile in it.
>>29488685
PAC-3 is for BMD only and it's basically point defence with THAAD/SM-3 and GMD preceding it in the layer defence.. PAC-2 and the GEM/T upgrades are for air-breathing targets and it seems they're a dying breed in the US.
>>29488764
No anti-ship missiles here, it's too small. At this stage. IFPC 2 is basically just CRAM defence and indirect fire support at this stage.
Army doesn't want to revive coastal artillery.
>>29488705
>>29488755
The army basically shit canned air defence with the end of the Cold War and any attempt to revived it failed for mostly budgetary reasons. The closest thing was the SLAMRAAM but that too failed.
>>29488837
>No anti-ship missiles here, it's too small.
That's just a blatant lie.
The MML isn't just for the IFPC project. It happens to be the focus at the time, but you see it being used for other things. Its integration with Hellfires is proof of that.
>Army doesn't want to revive coastal artillery.
Let's just think about the pivot to the Pacific. If you have a launcher which COULD be used for anti-ship missiles, you want it.
>>29489074
The biggest thing they can put on it is the Sidewinder or Hellfire physically. And in no way has anyone mentioned anti-ship capabilities for the MML.
I mentioned the army doesn't want to revive coastal artillery in respect to the Asia-Pacific pivot. The army has no intention currently of acquiring anti-ship missiles, right now they're working on faster expeditionary forces with ships, planes, etc and qualifying army aviators for navy vessels.
>>29488837
>The army basically shit canned air defence with the end of the Cold War
Because we're half a world away from anything that poses a threat and we have air dominance to keep the skies clear.
>>29489173
Why can't they have one jack of all trades missile that's good for air, sea, and land? A long range missile with a dual purpose warhead that can be set to time delay for use against ships or whatever.
>>29489198
The US Army is worldwide. And yes we have the USAF to cover, but the army has been trying to revive air defense for the last decade.
Hopefully this gets the ball rolling.
better be careful. they dont want us getting our hands on these when the happening is upon us.
>>29489227
Ever since we dropped the Raven we've been down to just Patriots and other short ranged defenses. Can't say I ever heard of anyone wanting much beyond that and anti-ICBM stuff, but I only ran into air defense units a few times.
>>29489276
No specific initiative, just some statements this last year from some big wigs. Don't remember their names, but I remember one was lamenting the air and missile defense was basically just missile defense today.
Basically no monies or initiative to recreate mid level anti-air.
>>29489173
>The biggest thing they can put on it is the Sidewinder or Hellfire physically.
And you can fit many AShMs in the same space.
>And in no way has anyone mentioned anti-ship capabilities for the MML.
Yeah they did, about 9 months ago.
And they haven't named anything yet, but there has been talk about it. Currently, the budget is rather full, but in a couple years, after the Navy has acquired their new AShM, you will most likely see it.
>>29489226
It'd be a shitty missile. Too many radically different requirements.
>>29489364
I just keep thinking of the IFV in Red Alert 2, that thing shoots missiles and those missiles can be used against troops, tanks, ships, and planes.
Next gen tank should double as an SPAAG, with an AESA radar capable of spotting low flying aircraft/choppers & shooting them down.
Dedicated anti-air is likely useless since 95% of the time it'll be firing on ground targets.
>>29491163
dedicated anti air gives you control over airspace without firing a single missile. its minefields for planes
>>29489349
If you have a missile that can catch a missile, it will be able to catch a plane.
>>29491293
Not sure what that means
>>29491458
That depends. Some anti-ballistic missiles are designed to got so high up that they might actually have trouble hitting a plane just because their initial launch speed is so high that they won't be able to slow down in time.
>>29491163
>Next gen tank should double as an SPAAG, with an AESA radar capable of spotting low flying aircraft/choppers & shooting them down.
There isn't any need for such a thing now that >>29487237
exists.
So, what sort of job is it to operate one of these sort of vehicles?
>>29491501
It denies the airspace to the enemy just by its presence. You're familiar with the fleet in being concept?
>>29491530
No it's just a launcher. You still need means for detection (both passive and active) and comm/command vehicle.
This is meant for both point and area defence, while SPAAG are usually meant to protect tanks from getting surprise anal
>Dedicated anti-air is likely useless since 95% of the time it'll be firing on ground targets.
What the fuck you're talking about
>>29491530
This doesn't go with your front line forces.
The US is working hard towards putting lasers on their vehicles, so perhaps organic AA is unnecessary.
>>29491671
Whats hard to understand
What aircraft/choppers do you think american anti-air is going to be shooting at?
>>29491671
He's talking about what AA spends its time doing
Unless you think those S-60's on ISIS technicals or SAA ZSU-23-4's are shooting down all our drones.
>>29491163
maybe when they put "lasers" on it
how good is american aa
>>29487237
Looks like the mobile IDF iron dome
Basically a 15 round launcher capable of firing Stingers, Sidewinders, Hellfires and possibly LM's MHTK missile.
Neat.
How would the Hellfires be cued?
More info.
http://www.army.mil/article/154848/Multi_Mission_Launcher_Delivery_Ceremony/
Hey! I think i found a use for all those m113s!!!
>>29495900
Fuck off, Sparks.
AMPV is love. AMPV is life.
That said, the MML will be mounted on FMTVs.
