Defence Q&A active protection systems VS MAM L

[Quasar]

I want to hear your opinions on What are the chances of an active protection systems against MAM L. in this scenario it is safe to assume that the target tank has a laser warning system as well.

 

[Quasar]

I want to hear your opinions on What are the chances of an active protection systems against MAM L. in this scenario it is safe to assume that the target tank has a laser warning system as well.

I love what Ukrainians are doing to KA 52 with STUGNA-P ATGM, pointing the laser designator to the the target at last seconds to prevent detection by laser warning system so we may overcome the problem same way. ok at least the half of the question may have an answer now.

 

[Combat-Master]

I want to hear your opinions on What are the chances of an active protection systems against MAM L. in this scenario it is safe to assume that the target tank has a laser warning system as well.

The only real reason why MAM-L requires laser designation is to hit moving targets, otherwise it's internal navigation is precise due to it's limited range <20km and short flight distance.

MAM-L has Inertial Navigation System, Inertial Measurement Unit and GPS. Modern Electro Optics usually have GEO-Location Pointing, from which precise location is gathered from UAV to target and fed to fire control computer which programs MAM-L to follow flight plan to hit target. Similar navigation system is also found on CIRIT, but without GPS - INS and IMU and fire control computer is all that's required to hit precise locations without laser designation. How precise, is another matter all together <10m CEP gives good chance to hit a tank sized object.

 

[500]

I want to hear your opinions on What are the chances of an active protection systems against MAM L. in this scenario it is safe to assume that the target tank has a laser warning system as well.

Current Hard Kill systems are ineffective against MAM-L.

On the other hand LWR can easily detect laser beam set smoke and move away. Still there is quite a good chance to hit tank.

I love what Ukrainians are doing to KA 52, pointing the laser designator to the the target at last seconds to prevent detection by laser warning system so we may overcome the problem same way. ok at least the half of the question may have an answer now.

Problem that free fall bomb is much harder to see than missile. So you can only estimate time but cant see when exactly move the designator.

The only real reason why MAM-L requires laser designation is to hit moving targets, otherwise it's internal navigation is precise due to it's limited range <20km and short flight distance.

MAM-L has Inertial Navigation System, Inertial Measurement Unit and GPS. Modern Electro Optics usually have GEO-Location Pointing, from which precise location is gathered from UAV to target and fed to fire control computer which programs MAM-L to follow flight plan to hit target. Similar navigation system is also found on CIRIT, but without GPS - INS and IMU and fire control computer is all that's required to hit precise locations without laser designation. How precise, is another matter all together <10m CEP gives good chance to hit a tank sized object.

INS is obviously not enough to hit a tank. Even GPS is not.

 

[Tsenal]

Current Hard Kill systems are ineffective against MAM-L.

On the other hand LWR can easily detect laser beam set smoke and move away. Still there is quite a good chance to hit tank.


Problem that free fall bomb is much harder to see than missile. So you can only estimate time but cant see when exactly move the designator.


INS is obviously not enough to hit a tank. Even GPS is not.

Why is hard kill ineffective? They are designed to counter targets with similar size and speed.

 

[500]

Why is hard kill ineffective? They are designed to counter targets with similar size and speed.

Current APS (like Trophy) lack radars which look upwards, plus their launchers also have limited angle of attack.