What exactly about the ADATS supposedly made it such an abortive piece of shit?Is it a case of it merely existing in a time before Western nations seriously thought they'd require SHORAD? Was it tech limitations of the era?With the focus on anti-drone SHORAD that can move with and cover mechanized assaults, would the ADATS or similar concept >Auto-cannon, search and track radar, and/or IRST complex put atop an IFV>Larger missiles capable of engaging targets at extended ranges (ideally up to 15kms)be executed better than the original be a smart way to go? If not, why not and what are some better options with modern design being where it is?I know the original had a 25mm, but would this concept of vehicle with the missile plus a 30mm with airburst be wise?>to the one anon that thinks this is some stupid trolling shit from their favorite bogeyman.Fuck you and fuck him both in the ear.
>>61988414ADATS was weird in that it was a SAM and ATGM but it wasn't bad. It was just bad timing. It entered service just as the Soviets collapsed and the peace dividend kicked in. Everyone had to start prioritizing a much smaller budget and SHORAD was at the bottom of the list. SHORAD is coming back today and the Stryker based MSHORAD isn't that different in concept really. You have the M230 30mm, Stingers and Hellfires. You wouldn't just resurrect a 30 year old system like ADATS today, you would either build something based on an in-service platform or develop something new. If it had entered service with the US, it likely would still be in service today and would warrant updates that would make it useful against drones.
>>61988414>What exactly about the ADATS supposedly made it such an abortive piece of shit?the collapse of the Soviet Union
>>61988485>HellfiresOriginally yes, but they are moving away from the twin Hellfire and doubling the Stinger count for the Increment 1 vehicles. The whole dual purpose AD/ATGM thing as novel as it is just doesn't really hold up any more as a concept. Threats are too varied to try and shoehorn both capabilities into a single missile.
>>61988696Yeah I heard they were having issues with the missiles holding up to life on a ground vehicle. Hellfire is on the way out for JAGM anyways. >The whole dual purpose AD/ATGM thing as novel as it is just doesn't really hold up any more as a concept. Threats are too varied to try and shoehorn both capabilities into a single missile.I feel like had it been adopted, that probably would have been replaced with the dedicated SAM at some point.
>>61988485>>61988656So it could work, just with more modern sensibilities like with the MSHORAD.Hellfires and Stingers are nifty for snap anti-vehicle needs and more anti-drone options/the occasional target that's close enough, respectively, but something I've always been interested in the MIM-146 for is the possibility of targeting things further than 10km. The Ka-52s in Zaporizhzhia did play some havoc on mech assaults by the Ukranians since their newer ATGMs have a stated 15km range. It seems like 52s are only less of an issue now because a lot have been 'acked on the ground in ATACMS strikes, or probably are pushing the limit of airworthiness by now. But they did show a possible serious need for mechanized coverage against some longer ranged threats that I don't think Stinger will handle.
>>61988696>The whole dual purpose AD/ATGM thing as novel as it is just doesn't really hold up any more as a concept.Admittedly it really was a nifty thing, but I agree, especially now.>>61988725>replaced with the dedicated SAM at some point.I think this is what most interests me. If the US put serious effort into modernizing the missile component from ADATS, then I'm convinced we'd have a missile able to reliably reach out past 10kms years ago that wouldn't be overly unwieldy or comically out of place sitting atop an IFV chassis.
>>61988729Of course it would have worked. This was a program that made it through development and testing to adoption and was only cut due to budgetary reasons with the end of the cold war. If it had just been a couple years earlier it would have made it in to service fine. And it did enter service with the leafs. But their small size and funding meant they never really upgraded them.
>>61988725Probably? Or it would have been evolved into a more specific dedicated SAM system, not totally unlike Sgt. Stout as it currently exists. But on that note, Stinger is also going out, could be interesting to see if they keep it small and man portable or go for something larger and mounted like Mistral or RBS 70.
>>61988756It was nifty, and it's not as though air defence systems being used against ground targets is a new thing, it's as old as the concept of air defence. But still, even with the 30mm cannon it will still have some utility, be it a limited one. The best bet for a modern American short range SAM would be something like Peregrine, which may or may not be being pitched for use in the Enduring Shield launcher.
>>61988768Any word on the program requirements for the replacement? I heard they restarted production due to Ukraine. But it hasn't been updated since the 90's so that's a stop gap at best. I can see it going a few different ways. Do we want a true MANPADS? or do we want a SHORAD? I think a new MANPADS should be further optimized for drone and helo threats. You can get away with a smaller, lighter and cheaper missile if you don't intend it to take down fixed wing aircraft. With SHORAD systems back on the menu and able to deal with fixed wing I think that's the smarter approach.
>>61988786>>61988757Thank you immeasurably, anons.>>61988768>could be interesting to see if they keep it small and man portable or go for something larger and mounted like Mistral or RBS 70.Why not both. Seriously, with everything we've seen (that's at least reasonably applicable to NATO/Western militaries) from Ukraine, I'd hope that we'd incorporate "high/low mix" mentality to air defense, with division level assets down to the squad or platoon level, with mounted options suited to company-level assets.
>>61988414This is a warriortard thread
>>61988793Beyond "be better than Stinger" no, not much word. The plan definitely appears to be a MANPADS replacement that can also be used in ground vehicles. It appears Army wants it to be able to engage anything in the air, drones, fast jets, helicopters, etc. There is supposed to be a tech demonstration this year, and production in 2027, but that might be pretty optimistic. This gives an interesting hint however. Whatever the launcher is, it'll have a digital display, and given the projects integrating Stingers with the Javelin CLU, there could be some kind of new unified CLU for use with a Javelin replacement and Stinger replacement. https://www.kopin.com/press-releases/kopin-selected-to-develop-integrated-eyepiece-assembly-for-us-armys-next-generation-short-range-interceptor-missile-program/
>>61988831>there could be some kind of new unified CLU for use with a Javelin replacement and Stinger replacement.I fucking came.
>>61988819Having a hi/low MANPADS is probably excessive for supply chain bloat reasons. However they have done that for SHORAD. M-LIDS is to cover drone and slow threats, M-SHORAD is for everything else. And then there is IFPC which is for static defence, but it has a magazine, so you'll be able to equip it with cheap interceptors and high performance ones.
>>61988854>Having a hi/low MANPADS is probably excessive for supply chain bloat reasons.Always good to have logi concerns to reign in particularly retarded flights of fancy, I guess lmao.Still, with everything in the pipeline it'll be funny in 20 years to remember all the "Russia is king of ground-based air defense" memes.
>>61988853They probably won't go this route for cost and capability reasons, but it's possible. >>61988877Russia was only the king on paper because they were the only ones that fucking bothered keeping a large force of SAMs for maneuver and static defence. The war in Ukraine proved them entirely correct in having that force, however the force had issues upon issues.
>>61988907>Russia was only the king on paper because they were the only ones that fucking bothered keeping Well that and you had everyone qualified to talk about GBAD saying that Russian systems were a serious threat. When weasel pilots say S-300 is a threat, you tend to reckon it's a threat. Now, maybe that's another case of the US military refusing to underestimate a foe, but we weren't given a reason to believe otherwise for a long time. >>61988831I supposed they expect to counter low end drones some other way. Because a stinger equivalent is way too expensive and scare to be used against autonomous suicide drones.
>>61988414This is the same shit as the Pantsir and it doesn't work for the same reason - the enemy with even 10x less resources can afford to throw hundreds of drones at this thing and experience shows they actually can and do. Even if it had autocannons, the system or the crew has to fuck up only once, and eventually they always do.
>>61991737>PantsirAre shit because, aside from being Russian, most of its specs are probably fudged to some degree. And that's not taking into account the Russian inability to use any of their equipment as advertised (Pantsirs aren't *supposed* to be some lone, random vehicle all by its lonesome), nor the dubious quality of components and personnel training.Ignoring this outs you as someone trying *reeeealllly* hard to force equivalence despite the mountain of differences.>the system or the crew has to fuck up only onceThis is not a reality that obviates the utility of a weapon system, you absolute pseud lmao. Even as shit as they are, Pantsirs *still* serve the basic function when the Russians use their shit appropriately. You dronefags don't get that all you are is the modern iteration of>THE BOMBER ALWAYS GETS THROUGH!That *was* true, until it wasn't because counters became too effective to guarantee.Welcome to weapons development, I guess.
