Stinger missile in an anti-tank role.

[sexyloser1128]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbmiAq7pXQE

So above is a video showing a Stinger missile hitting a parked helicopter.
I always thought if you give anti-air missiles a shape charge than you can use them against armor making them dual-purpose weapons and making forces more flexible.

Even if they couldn't penetrate the frontal armor they can hit the weaker roof armor. So I'm wondering why they haven't done this already because I don't see any technical problems with this concept.

[TheKiwi]

Proximity fired warhead for AA means you don't want a shaped charge.

[sexyloser1128]

A shape charge/fragmentation warhead with proximity or contact selection would allow you target armor or aircraft. So why haven't they done this before? Because MANPADS just have HE warheads and I'm thinking instead of carrying two types of missiles and their launchers you just need to carry one.

[The Dane]

Stinger has become an amazing little missile.
Missiles like Javelin and Spike can be used against lowing flying helicopters.

[sexyloser1128]

Stinger has become an amazing little missile.
Missiles like Javelin and Spike can be used against lowing flying helicopters.

My second suggestion would be to give ATGMs like Javelin and Spike a proximity fuse to make it easier to hit helicopters.

[2495]

The AIM-9 is being adapted to be used in a secondary role against ground targets, and F-15 and 16s have demonstrated this anti surface target capability in testing.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/03/335762/exclusive-raytheon-adapts-aim-9x-for-air-to-ground-mission.html

That said, anti armour requires a larger warhead than is carried in most air to air systems, and having a combined shaped / fragmentation warhead would mean you lose half your effectiveness due to the multirole nature of the warhead. Again though, plans are afoot for a multi use warhead so your not far off the mark in your thinking, its just stinger won't be the platform.

[RAFREGT.]

When the RAF Regiment had Rapier it was said it could be used to engage ground targets as it could point down hill...I actually alarmed and locked onto a tractor ploughing a field one day on exercise. The old missile warhead was only 2Lbs of RDX/TNT with a contact fuse.

[2495]

When the RAF Regiment had Rapier it was said it could be used to engage ground targets as it could point down hill...I actually alarmed and locked onto a tractor ploughing a field one day on exercise. The old missile warhead was only 2Lbs of RDX/TNT with a contact fuse.

LOL! rofl

That 2lb of RDX would make a frigging nasty hole in the tractor thats for sure, and any soft skinned vehicle would be pulverised, as well as the initial effects of the kinetic energy from a direct impact...

[Bro Jangles]

Gosh dont you watch movies? It was done in Navy SEALs to great effect.

[TheArmenian]

In theory, it can be done. But in practice it will not be worth doing it.

Heat seeking MANPADS like Stinger, Igla etc. are supersonic and are relatively expensive.

A shaped charge (Anti-tank) missile is much slower and costs less.

The speed of the the MANPADS is not an advantage when used in the anti-tank role.

[Hauser]

The AIM-9 is being adapted to be used in a secondary role against ground targets, and F-15 and 16s have demonstrated this anti surface target capability in testing.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/03/335762/exclusive-raytheon-adapts-aim-9x-for-air-to-ground-mission.html

That said, anti armour requires a larger warhead than is carried in most air to air systems, and having a combined shaped / fragmentation warhead would mean you lose half your effectiveness due to the multirole nature of the warhead. Again though, plans are afoot for a multi use warhead so your not far off the mark in your thinking, its just stinger won't be the platform.

Didn't they make a version of the sidewinder that was an anti radiation missile? Can't remember the name, but was side- something, so idea has existed since the 80s (think it was designed to go on corsair).

[Mackie]

The missile is currently under development by MBDA along with Diehl BGT Defence and features a highly sensitive infrared seeker which is capable of identifying targets with an extremely low infrared signature, such as other missiles or UAVs as well as aircraft and helicopters. The missile will also be fitted with a penetrator warhead to engage armored targets. In the SysFla Block I the missile will be vertically launched and used for interception within a maximum range of 10 km and effective to a height of 5 km.
The missile is capable of intercepting targets within visual range and beyond (NLOS “None-line-of-sight” capability).


http://www.yourdefencenews.com/introducing+sysfla+-+germanys+next+short+and+mid-range+air+defence+system_25248.html

[2495]

The speed of the the MANPADS is not an advantage when used in the anti-tank role.

Really? speed is not an advantage when knocking out armour?

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/ho_VHOjzMX0

[2495]

Didn't they make a version of the sidewinder that was an anti radiation missile? Can't remember the name, but was side- something, so idea has existed since the 80s (think it was designed to go on corsair).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-122.html

Read all about it at the link.

[The Dane]

Really? speed is not an advantage when knocking out armour?


Not much if you used HE/HEI warheads like AA missiles do..

[TheArmenian]

Really? speed is not an advantage when knocking out armour?

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/ho_VHOjzMX0


Not really. Your video shows a KINETIC ENERGY weapon that uses velocity (speed) to destoy its target. The original poster is asking about placing a SHAPED CHARGE on a Stinger missile.

The Stinger's velocity and energy is not sufficient to penetrate the armor of a tank. A shaped charge warhead will be helpfull. But in that case speed will not be a factor.

@ original poster.

Even if we place a shaped charge on a Stinger or any MANPADS, the missile diameter is on the smallish side, hence the power of the shaped charge will not be enough to penetrate a heavily armoured vehicle like a tank. It will be sufficient to penetrate only the lightly armoured vehicles like APCs.

[Hauser]

Isn't starstreak meant to be moderately effective against armour?

[Dominique]

First off a Stinger missile is SMALL, and can't carry that large of a warhead, which is fine for shooting down aircraft, but for an anti-armor weapon, you're going to need something that can penetrate the vehicles armor.

[NineLine]

In theory, it can be done. But in practice it will not be worth doing it.

Heat seeking MANPADS like Stinger, Igla etc. are supersonic and are relatively expensive.

A shaped charge (Anti-tank) missile is much slower and costs less.

The speed of the the MANPADS is not an advantage when used in the anti-tank role.


Couple problems here.

1) We have a ton of them laying around that are getting old.
2) Anything with a solid heat signature will be a target which pretty much makes the possibilities unlimited.
3) Ten times more accurate then a SMAW or AT4. Don't really want to get into detail about effective ranges...but trust me the AIM-9 is probably far more accurate at distance when compared.
4) Probably not going to be shooting any modern tanks; unless the Taliban 1st Armored division comes out of hiding.
5) It gives the LAAD Bn something to do other than patrol around airbases.
6) Speed is a huge factor in destroying hard targets. Kind along the lines of a wheat straw going through a reinforced brick wall in a tornado theory. If you get rocked by a supersonic missile in a tank; your going to feel it regardless. Probably even more effective on APCs and IFVs than a MBT though. Time will tell....

Not saying this going to become SOP; but its fricking cool as hell.

[XIE]

It does not need to penetrate to kill most AFV/IFVs. Think of a 10kg object impacting the side of a BTR at 3-400m/s. That is enough to at least kill the optics/comms/external weapons of nearly all IFV/AFVs. It is not going to kill a tank, but against a range of armoured vehicles it will be effective.

This application of using small missiles with limited (but still sufficient) warheads is gaining traction with Western militaries due to ROE/Collateral damage considerations

[Ought Six]

TA:
"In theory, it can be done. But in practice it will not be worth doing it. Heat seeking MANPADS like Stinger, Igla etc. are supersonic and are relatively expensive."Considering how $750k Javelin missiles have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not think that cost alone would prevent using Stingers against ground targets. I think the fact that they are just not designed for that use and likely would not work too well is real limiting factor.

[sexyloser1128]

In theory, it can be done. But in practice it will not be worth doing it.

Heat seeking MANPADS like Stinger, Igla etc. are supersonic and are relatively expensive.

A shaped charge (Anti-tank) missile is much slower and costs less.

The speed of the the MANPADS is not an advantage when used in the anti-tank role.

While tanks are slow, missile speed is still important to lessen the chance of the tank employing countermeasures. Also while using ATGM's is more cost-effective, the most expensive MANPAD missile is still cheaper than a tank.


First off a Stinger missile is SMALL, and can't carry that large of a warhead, which is fine for shooting down aircraft, but for an anti-armor weapon, you're going to need something that can penetrate the vehicles armor.

Yes, the missile warhead is small and we can't do anything about that unless we want to add weight. But the video in the first post showed the missile in a lofted trajectory that crashed down onto the target like almost all top-attack ATGMs. So if a sub-munition of a DPICM the size of a hand grenade could damage a tank, then I feel that attacking the thin roof-armor is viable with the amount of explosives a small missile like the Stinger has is viable.

I'm just thinking lets say as a scenario that you are a scout or special forces and you don't know what to expect e.g. tanks, IFVs, attack helicopters and you need to prepare for anything so you don't get caught with your pants down. You'll need a missile that is manportable and is effective against multiple targets.

[Dominique]

Yes, the missile warhead is small and we can't do anything about that unless we want to add weight. But the video in the first post showed the missile in a lofted trajectory that crashed down onto the target like almost all top-attack ATGMs. So if a sub-munition of a DPICM the size of a hand grenade could damage a tank, then I feel that attacking the thin roof-armor is viable with the amount of explosives a small missile like the Stinger has is viable.

I'm just thinking lets say as a scenario that you are a scout or special forces and you don't know what to expect e.g. tanks, IFVs, attack helicopters and you need to prepare for anything so you don't get caught with your pants down. You'll need a missile that is manportable and is effective against multiple targets.

They'd have to develop a new multi-role warhead, as the one currently in use is a proximity fuse fragmentation warhead, specifically designed to destroy soft skinned aircraft, by fragmentation. And they'd have to come up with a new program for the CPU. But, if someone can work out the kinks, I don't see why it couldn't be done.

[XIE]

Guidance systems is the big problem. Think about the potential of a MANPAD equipped unit that can perform limited AARMD roles. Every commander would take GBAD if they could do both roles.

I only know of one MANPAD system that can do ground targeting with its current guidance system, RBS70. Only restriction being that the laser corridor cannot be interfered with. Other than the laser, the Mk3/Bolide missile is more than capable of conducting a credible AARMD role out to 8km.

[-Max2-]

The AIM-9 is being adapted to be used in a secondary role against ground targets, and F-15 and 16s have demonstrated this anti surface target capability in testing.



Interestingly, an RAF Jaguar got a kill on a truck with an AIM-9L Sidewinder during GW1.

The same happened in Vietnam with a F-4.

[Sabre]

No one has mentioned the issue of speed being a disadvantage for an anti armour system. Fire and forget capability is certainly useful in a busy battlefield, but for a lot of roles that ATGMs are used for, ie taking out small groups of insurgents, a directable capability to the last second is quite useful. A supersonic missile would make that very difficult.

Going back to the original poster's point, he is confusing an overlap of targets with an overlap in capability or requirement.

Helicopters bridge the air/ground gap. A parked helo in terms of target aquisition is no different to a parked tank, just as a low, slow flying helo is no different to a tank moving quickly along a ridge. Height above the firer, speed heat signature etc are comparable. That is why most modern ATGMs are rated as effective against low flying helos. The converse is not true though. Just because a stinger hit and destroyed a parked helo, doesn't mean it can destroy a parked or moving tank. A gpmg can destroy a parked helo too, but it doesn't mean it's the optimum weapon to take out a flying one. It is feasible, but it's not ideal.

Going back to the argument of kinetic energy or small HE charges scoring M-kills, what does that matter? The taliban score M-kills on a daily basis on our mine/IED protected vehicles, we simply recover them and their crews and repair them. Occasionally they score a K-kill, but it's hardly reliable.

In addition, we are currently operating with 100% air dominance. If we were to be operating without air dominance or air superiority we would have wildly different deployment tactics and be using dense air defence envelopes and unit level dedicated AA systems. The scope for a 'just in case' dual purpose missile is pretty limited.

[RAFREGT.]

can you imagine what damage a steel girder, doing mach 2, would do to any vehicle???

[2495]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/ho_VHOjzMX0


can you imagine what damage a steel girder, doing mach 2, would do to any vehicle???

Yup.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/

and although LOSAT was not carried forward, CKEM is paving the way in kinetic energy penetrators. A smaller, lighter version for the boots on the ground.

[Dave242]

Isn't starstreak meant to be moderately effective against armour?

Yes, it can take out a APC, along with a few types of Tank's

Also Ought Six you are way overpricing a Javelin by about 10 fold

Dave

[Sabre]

can you imagine what damage a steel girder, doing mach 2, would do to any vehicle???

Yes I could imagine that, but a stinger missile is relatively flimsy by comparisson and only weighs 10kg, most of that being fuel which is used to accelerate it up to those speeds.

My point is that there are better, more suitable, weapons currently fielded to do the tasks they are designed for.

This site is often filled with "wouldn't it be cool if..." threads where the posters don't seem to appreciate the fact that there is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide churning this stuff out. I doubt they would miss an obvious potential application for a multirole missile were there to be a requirement or a possibility of it.

[XIE]

RAFREGT - Yeah, not a nice result - no matter what. That is the advantage of the Rapier system. RBS70 is similar in some regards but with a significantly lighter missile.

Sabre - Agree with the comment regarding air dominance but put yourself in a GW1/GW2 scenario. Potential application for a dual purpose MANPAD / AARMD weapon is that a GBAD unit/sub-unit could now be given a screen or deny task on a flank for a mobile BG/Bde. Allowing Cavalry, that would have conducted that task the ability to be tasked else where.

[2495]

This site is often filled with "wouldn't it be cool if..." threads where the posters don't seem to appreciate the fact that there is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide churning this stuff out. I doubt they would miss an obvious potential application for a multirole missile were there to be a requirement or a possibility of it.

There is, at this moment hidden in deep black projects a material that was developed by a hairdresser in the UK - yes a hair dresser.

It has thermal properties that confounded the defence establishments keenest minds, and they battered a path to his door to get the ingredients list and the way he produced it. Then it went black.

Do you know, at ICI who holds the most patents for new inventions / ideas? here is a hint, it is not those who are in the senior researcher positions. Some times being so clever blinds you to the most obvious.

[martinexsquaddie]

manpad speed speed is good if your trying to hit a jet
antitank a big warhead if your trying to kill a tank speed less important

a very fast missle with a big warhead much coolness but more weight and more cost

laws of physics get in the way

[oldsoak]

Canucks have a Contraves system that has anti armour capability - ADATS.
Wouldnt want to be on the rx end of that lot.

[JoaMei]

But ADATS Missiles are also quite expensive.

[XIE]

I think the intent of the original concept was that a MANPAD system could engage ground targets if required. Not a full multirole system. ADATS is a GBAD system that use laser to guide the missile, thus being able to aim it at anything you want, unlike a IR/heat/radar guided MANPAD.

The functionality of engaging ground targets through other means with a MANPAD would greatly enhance its capability.