HUMRAAM
-
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm#CLAWS
The HUMRAAN is a ground to air system from the AIM-120 AMRAAM
I was wondering if the HUMRAAM can be used by SIngapore, or if something similar can be made. Singapore currently does not have any vehicle launched anti-aircraft missile (other than MANPADS that you can put inside the APCs) as far as I know, and something like that would be a welcome addition to the inventory,
Problems would be whether the missile can be slaved to current mobile air radar used and putting it on tracks if the army wants something to travel with its tanks and APCs. -
oops nvm
-
a bit off topic, but is the JERNAS(for malaysia) considered vehicle launched?
bcoz it doesnt really look like a vehicle--but it has very good mobility
JERNAS- btw, it looks quite cool -
Thats the Rapier FSC. . .Originally posted by [-t-]:a bit off topic, but is the JERNAS(for malaysia) considered vehicle launched?
bcoz it doesnt really look like a vehicle--but it has very good mobility
[pic]
JERNAS- btw, it looks quite cool
Singapore uses Rapier Mk 2 -
Fellow singaporean!! we already have problems gettin our amraam back to home ground let alone acquiring Humraam
-
Wats the use of the HUMRAAM in Singapore...? If in terms of Air-defense , i prefer the Barak land-based system or the TOR-M1 which provides excellent mobile/point air-defense capability.
When used for the Protection of mobile armour unit from Air-elements , i believe any missile that have the range of more /= 10km is adequate to do the job. Most importantly missile must have the ability to intercerpt surprise missile attack from all directions at anytime , thus i will prefer a VL/ mobile missile defense system. Another important advantage of VLS is that it is idea to operate in clustered environment ( urban areas , forest tracks ) , which are the main terrain which the SAF's armour will be most likely fighting.
With the technology available to Singapore , the cheaper Barak will be my vote for our mobile Air -defense requirement. -
protection from? aircrafts likely... but from warheads? not likely... even if they can intercept the warheads they can just saturate their attack and ... still GONE... still to think ... which radar can handle a huge attack... say 500 to 1000 warheads... i think it is not cost effective and also ineffective.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Wats the use of the HUMRAAM in Singapore...? If in terms of Air-defense , i prefer the Barak land-based system or the TOR-M1 which provides excellent mobile/point air-defense capability.
When used for the Protection of mobile armour unit from Air-elements , i believe any missile that have the range of more /= 10km is adequate to do the job. Most importantly missile must have the ability to intercerpt surprise missile attack from all directions at anytime , thus i will prefer a VL/ mobile missile defense system. Another important advantage of VLS is that it is idea to operate in clustered environment ( urban areas , forest tracks ) , which are the main terrain which the SAF's armour will be most likely fighting.
With the technology available to Singapore , the cheaper Barak will be my vote for our mobile Air -defense requirement. -
can u tell mi who the hell in this region is going to throw 500 warheads onto our Armour battle group?? Btw , wat is warhead in ur content???Originally posted by MushyMaro:protection from? aircrafts likely... but from warheads? not likely... even if they can intercept the warheads they can just saturate their attack and ... still GONE... still to think ... which radar can handle a huge attack... say 500 to 1000 warheads... i think it is not cost effective and also ineffective.
The main objective of having mobile air-defense on the protection of Armour groups is to protect it from low flying helicopters to medium attitude flying aircraft coming at all direction , anytime. With the threat of top-attack ATGM , mobile SAMs can be use to neutralize such threat if possible. -
The JERNAS is an upgrade of the Rapier.Originally posted by laser51088:Thats the Rapier FSC. . .
Singapore uses Rapier Mk 2
the one in the picture is a JERNAS -
i prefer VL too..our Lekiu's use SEAWOLF VL SAMs..they are good..singapore should get something like that too-or do u already have?Originally posted by foxtrout8:Wats the use of the HUMRAAM in Singapore...? If in terms of Air-defense , i prefer the Barak land-based system or the TOR-M1 which provides excellent mobile/point air-defense capability.
When used for the Protection of mobile armour unit from Air-elements , i believe any missile that have the range of more /= 10km is adequate to do the job. Most importantly missile must have the ability to intercerpt surprise missile attack from all directions at anytime , thus i will prefer a VL/ mobile missile defense system. Another important advantage of VLS is that it is idea to operate in clustered environment ( urban areas , forest tracks ) , which are the main terrain which the SAF's armour will be most likely fighting.
With the technology available to Singapore , the cheaper Barak will be my vote for our mobile Air -defense requirement. -
Our Barak on our MCVs are vertically launched. So are our Aster 15 on our future Project Delta frigates.
-
please man... welcome to the real world ... if i want u die... i will throw 500 warheads just 155mm rounds at u. they dun have to be smart... Equation.. barak vs conventional dumb rounds.. equals lose a lot of money... anyway who the hell in the world has implemented it... against aircrafts and heli >>Yes .... but against ATGM and Arty rounds??? NO. (or am i outdated??)Originally posted by foxtrout8:can u tell mi who the hell in this region is going to throw 500 warheads onto our Armour battle group?? Btw , wat is warhead in ur content???
The main objective of having mobile air-defense on the protection of Armour groups is to protect it from low flying helicopters to medium attitude flying aircraft coming at all direction , anytime. With the threat of top-attack ATGM , mobile SAMs can be use to neutralize such threat if possible. -
500 warhead....?? Wake up lah. Who the hell will want to use 500 155mm on an armour group and who the hell in this region can afford it...??Originally posted by MushyMaro:please man... welcome to the real world ... if i want u die... i will throw 500 warheads just 155mm rounds at u. they dun have to be smart... Equation.. barak vs conventional dumb rounds.. equals lose a lot of money... anyway who the hell in the world has implemented it... against aircrafts and heli >>Yes .... but against ATGM and Arty rounds??? NO. (or am i outdated??)
U know wat is a warhead? Be clear on ur word ... anything ranging from a Spike to a ICBM contain warhead leh.......
When did i say barak's main task agaisnt conventional dumb rounds???? Btw , dun u know Barak do have the capacity to intercerpt dumb round???( * note , i did not say saturation attack )
I susgested that the one most important factor of a mobile air defense unit is to be able to engage air threats coming at all direction at anytime , which includes surprise missile attacks eg ATGMs.(* note , i did not say saturated attack ) ( if have the capacity to down an ATGM isnt it a bonus?)
Trust mi , if the missile defense system can provide a screen agaisnt enemy ATGM , the enemy's aircraft can be easily toast .....
My take is that the HUMRAAM isnt the idea plateform for mobile air-defense of armour group , based on my three arguements. -
who the hell in the world has implemented it... against aircrafts and heli >>Yes .... but against ATGM and Arty rounds??? NO. (or am i outdated??)
Ha lol , okok . Take it that no one implemented on the protection agaisnt top attack ATGM , cant i implement it???? -
ok ok... now... say i now fire "SMART" but cheap ATGMs... and every Barak intercepted each and every ATGMs... so how many Baraks are you going to take along with you into the field? How many Radars? What about the Ground clutter? ATGM dun fly so high in the air also... u know that? and how fast can they keep up with the movement of the group? and ermh.. our friend UP there has thick foilage also... well... i think the only way to be safe is to be unseen... to the electronic eyes.
-
The Phalanx CIWS or something similar might to the job for engaging dumb rounds but need a suitable platform for it....
few 20mm rounds for a 155mm shell n a few armoured vehicles... reasonable teadeoff... -
Most ATGM are operated top attack or line of sight mode. ATGM can be engaged by the baraks as the Baraks are built to do so. U onli require one radar for it and btw if the foilage is too think up north then dun even think of enaging aircraft.......Originally posted by MushyMaro:ok ok... now... say i now fire "SMART" but cheap ATGMs... and every Barak intercepted each and every ATGMs... so how many Baraks are you going to take along with you into the field? How many Radars? What about the Ground clutter? ATGM dun fly so high in the air also... u know that? and how fast can they keep up with the movement of the group? and ermh.. our friend UP there has thick foilage also... well... i think the only way to be safe is to be unseen... to the electronic eyes. -
Friend, you dun try to shoot down 155mm rounds, you shoot the launcher with counter-battery... if they cna get off 500 rounds at your and you can't put counter battery back, something is already seriously wrong with your tatics...
The malaysian MBTs are hunks of junk pieces of useless and overpriced metal that can be summed up in a phrase:
paper tiger, which sums up most of their other military overspent and under utilized systems... -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Hey hey , nv did i mention abt shooting down 155mm....
Friend, you dun try to shoot down 155mm rounds, you shoot the launcher with counter-battery... if they cna get off 500 rounds at your and you can't put counter battery back, something is already seriously wrong with your tatics...
The malaysian MBTs are hunks of junk pieces of useless and overpriced metal that can be summed up in a phrase:
[b]paper tiger, which sums up most of their other military overspent and under utilized systems...[/b] -
i was the one....
-
Hey hey , even though some of us have strange but geniune ideas , we shd not rule out the fact that these ideas may be the next multi-million project.Originally posted by Moonstriker:i was the one....
Look at wat military generals say abt the flying toys during the first world war , think again !!! look at the gulf war...... The little thing we can do is to give credit even though we disagree.... -
well... what i can say is that... i bet no country in the world will use a current anti-missile missile to intercept an ATGM. It is way way way too expensive... and dun mind me saying also... we ARE expendable. I expect a next generation protection based on multi direction sensor with "Claymore" like devices position in 360 degrees. By the way how does the top-down attack ATGM detect that it is above the tank? Radar? Image? or ACTIVE or PASSIVE?Originally posted by foxtrout8:Hey hey , even though some of us have strange but geniune ideas , we shd not rule out the fact that these ideas may be the next multi-million project.
Look at wat military generals say abt the flying toys during the first world war , think again !!! look at the gulf war...... The little thing we can do is to give credit even though we disagree....
if ACTIVE... the job of destorying it will be easier.
about the BARAK missile... dun be too confident about its
capabilities... cos can i know if you are the one operating it or you just read the information from reports? only the operator will know its REAL capabilities. hahaha dun look at me also .... i not a missile operator. And... dun put all eggs into one basket... once the weak point is identified, it is as good as useless until the point is closed. -
for one thing, its guided... so the operator can actually decide where he wants it to go... like the Spike for instance... u can guide it all the way until it hits the v-comm standing on the turret of his tank...Originally posted by MushyMaro:By the way how does the top-down attack ATGM detect that it is above the tank? Radar? Image? or ACTIVE or PASSIVE?
if ACTIVE... the job of destorying it will be easier.
serious... its potentially THAT accurate...
in the fire and forget mode, its trajectory and image. the Spike has an IR camera and an onboard guidance system. ultimately, it'll hit where the operator tells it to hit... and its high trajectory increases the probability of hitting the turret.
but since it has a tandem warhead, its really not imperative to hit the turret... anywhere will kill it... u could fire it straight on and stand a fighting chance. -
Top attack ATGMs track and home unto the target as any other ATGM, they simply fly a bit higher then usual so they will overfly and fire their warhead down into the roof. In our case, it'll probably involve firing "kissing cousin" warheads down onto malaysian PT-91s and T-80s, immolating the tank crews in their poorly chosen equipment...
-
On the issue of shooting down artty rounds, there is a system the US is developing for force 21 that fools radar based proximity artty shells into bursting early via radar false feedback... creating an umbrella of safe passage against active airburst...
Of course, if the enemy switch to dumb rounds...