ToW missiles go wireless, raytheon to begin production! - Page 2

Anon · 10-12-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsiege

i thought the JAVELIN messile was the newer manportable anti tank missile for the american infantry. hmnnn strange!

Javelin is a squad based individual weapon. TOW is a weps/AT plt based crew-served weapon.

They have different roles.

HistoricalDavid · 10-12-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Apparently it's a matter of brute thrust, cause the missile itself is not particularly aerodynamic looking...

I'm more worried about the airframe practically melting. If the SR-71 reached 400 degrees C in some parts going Mach 3 at 80,000 feet, imagine twice the speed at 10 feet.

B.Smitty · 10-12-2006, 14:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Which is not going to happen in any realistic battlefield scenario.

Agreed.

Anon · 10-12-2006, 15:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

I'm more worried about the airframe practically melting. If the SR-71 reached 400 degrees C in some parts going Mach 3 at 80,000 feet, imagine twice the speed at 10 feet.

Well whatever the temps are it works. In fact, the US Army(last i checked- at the time of the thread i linked earlier), was scheduled to begin recieving the first deliveries late next year with an IOC sometime in FY08.

highsea · 10-12-2006, 16:09 PM

In the HATM, the penetrator separates from the booster once it reaches speed. The airframe only has to withstand the acceleration. It's a passive separation that is caused by aerodynamic forces, leaving the airframe is free to disintegrate when it's job is finished. IOW, it only needs to hold together for a second or so.

Anon · 10-12-2006, 17:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

In the HATM, the penetrator separates from the booster once it reaches speed. The airframe only has to withstand the acceleration. It's a passive separation that is caused by aerodynamic forces, leaving the airframe is free to disintegrate when it's job is finished. IOW, it only needs to hold together for a second or so.

Kewl, thanx for the explanation Highsea, i didn't know that.

What is it after separation, a typical APFSDSDU type long-rod penetrator? Any idea of the mass or diameter?

highsea · 10-12-2006, 17:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

What is it after separation, a typical APFSDSDU type long-rod penetrator? Any idea of the mass or diameter?

I don't see any sabot, you can see the penetrator in the pics, it's the needle looking part on the front of the booster. Looks like around an inch or so in dia., I don't have the specs (I'll see if I can dig them up). I was thinking it was tungsten, but it could be DU.

GGTharos · 10-12-2006, 17:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Not true. Remember, a datalink has transmitters and receivers on both ends. If the launcher unit transmitter/receiver is jammed, the system won't work.

Even the wired version has the potential to be jammed/disrupted, since it still uses a coded beacon in the tail of the missile that's tracked by the launcher. If you had a laser mounted on in a trainable turret on the target vehicle (ala DIRCMS), you could zap the launcher optics, which (in addition to losing sight of the target) could cause the laucher to lose track of the missile.

Sure, and so far all attempts to do this in the -battlefield- have failed. Whatyou say is true, but it isn't practical.

highsea · 10-12-2006, 18:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

...What is it after separation, a typical APFSDSDU type long-rod penetrator? Any idea of the mass or diameter?

To add to this a little more- From what I can tell, the HATM will not happen, apparently it was something that Raytheon was funding internally. The CKEM contract went to Lockmart.

The CKEM is a long rod penetrator also, 60" long and under 100 lbs. Mach 6+.

The spec called for greater than 10MJ penetrator energy at range (8 km).

I don't know about TOW launcher compatibility- it is intended to mount initially on Humvees and to be a component of FCS.

link:
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.co...duct-CKEM.html

FOG3 · 10-12-2006, 22:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The obvious answer is that the targeteer and the missileer does not need to be the same guy nor at the same location.

Point conceeded.

Anon · 10-13-2006, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

To add to this a little more- From what I can tell, the HATM will not happen, apparently it was something that Raytheon was funding internally. The CKEM contract went to Lockmart.

The CKEM is a long rod penetrator also, 60" long and under 100 lbs. Mach 6+.

The spec called for greater than 10MJ penetrator energy at range (8 km).

I don't know about TOW launcher compatibility- it is intended to mount initially on Humvees and to be a component of FCS.

link:
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.co...duct-CKEM.html

LOL, of course, why would we want the hyper-velocity killer that is compatible with TOW!?!?!

Heh, it never ends. Thanx for the links.

Akita · 04-25-2007, 18:09 PM

Sticking out in front of the TOW missle in that photo is a standoff detonator, not a penetrator. TOW, like Hellfire, Picket, Swingfire, etc...is a HEAT round, not a KE penetrator. The standoff detenator sets off reactive armor ahead of the shaped charge to nullify, as much as possible, the effects of protective reactive systems.

ArmchairGeneral · 04-25-2007, 20:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akita

Sticking out in front of the TOW missle in that photo is a standoff detonator, not a penetrator. TOW, like Hellfire, Picket, Swingfire, etc...is a HEAT round, not a KE penetrator. The standoff detenator sets off reactive armor ahead of the shaped charge to nullify, as much as possible, the effects of protective reactive systems.

Different missile. This is a development of the TOW that uses KE instead of HEAT. Mach 6+ speed. Sounds nice, although I wonder about accuracy issues. Seems like it would be kind of hard to guide a hyper velocity missile at the kind of range this weapon would be used.

Catalan · 04-25-2007, 20:57 PM

Both LOSAT and CKEM were canceled.

Akita · 04-25-2007, 21:04 PM

My bad. Did not know Line Of Sight Antitank was TOW based.

10-12-2006, 16:09 PM	#20 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,478	In the HATM, the penetrator separates from the booster once it reaches speed. The airframe only has to withstand the acceleration. It's a passive separation that is caused by aerodynamic forces, leaving the airframe is free to disintegrate when it's job is finished. IOW, it only needs to hold together for a second or so. __________________ My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar... Last edited by highsea : 10-12-2006 at 16:12 PM.

04-25-2007, 20:57 PM	#29 (permalink)
Catalan Regular Join Date: 11-20-05 Location: San Diego [USA] or El Provencio [Spain] Posts: 121	Both LOSAT and CKEM were canceled. __________________ If you enjoy modern military history then join modernwarstudies.net! http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i2...bees/siggy.png

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments	oneman28	International Defense Topics	96	06-23-2008 01:49 AM
UK not part of anti-missile defence plans	Ray	The Western Alliance	53	03-12-2007 14:08 PM
Carrier killers (an article from JED online)	lurker	Naval Forces	172	12-28-2006 00:39 AM
Battleship Tactics	Defcon 6	Battleships Forum	7	12-07-2006 09:10 AM

04-25-2007, 18:09 PM	#27 (permalink)
Akita Regular Join Date: 04-25-07 Posts: 34	Sticking out in front of the TOW missle in that photo is a standoff detonator, not a penetrator. TOW, like Hellfire, Picket, Swingfire, etc...is a HEAT round, not a KE penetrator. The standoff detenator sets off reactive armor ahead of the shaped charge to nullify, as much as possible, the effects of protective reactive systems.

04-25-2007, 21:04 PM	#30 (permalink)
Akita Regular Join Date: 04-25-07 Posts: 34	My bad. Did not know Line Of Sight Antitank was TOW based.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)