home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
- From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
- Subject: helos vs. tanks
- Message-ID: <BzzCqy.EE@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:32:58 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 71
-
-
- From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
-
-
-
- JD> A similar system already exists for both the US and Canada, in the
- JD> first case mounted on a bradley the second an M113.
- JD> It's the martin marietta "ADATS" consisting of 8 laser
- JD> guided missiles. The guidence system is similar to that of the
- JD> laser guided missiles of the apache helo.
- JD> The missiles are equaly good against air and ground
- JD> targets, and can take out enemy armour if needed.
- JD> The canadian requirements where tough and for the Adats to
- JD> win the comp ahead of other alternatives means it's a pretty
- JD> good anti-air system as far as self-propelled air-defence
- JD> systems go.
-
- Hi, John,
-
- Yeah, I'm familiar with the ADATS. It's always a subject of controversy, what
- with the Canadian Armed Forces always having to squeeze blood out of a stone
- come budget time. It seems like a great idea, but there are a few nagging
- problems that come to mind.
-
- First, it started out as a Bofors system. Martin Marietta bought the rights
- in order to sell it to the US military. The US didn't want it. Then Bofors
- sets up shop (under fairly shady circumstances - at least one provincial
- cabinet minister lost his job over the deal) in Quebec in order to further
- develop the system for the CAF. Any system that has this many "parents" and
- gets kicked around from country to country raises my suspicions. As far as
- I'm concerned, the CAF has a limited budget - they shouldn't be spending a pile
- of cash on unproven technology. We should leave that to you rich Americans.
-
- Second, there's an operational consideration with respect to the dual AA/AT use.
- Does it get deployed as an AA system, or an AT system? The logical answer is
- both, but remember budget restraints. As I recall, the CAF is considering
- buying approx. 100 units. That will probably trickle down to a regiment (say
- 18 units) per brigade group, plus some for training and some in storage. 18
- AA missle systems per brigade would provide good AA cover. What if enemy tanks
- appear? Do we re-task the unit for AT defense, and sacrifice AA capability?
- What about the attack jets that will accompany the tanks? On today's
- battlefield, aircraft and tanks are a major threat, and I can't help but think
- that the dual purpose system will end up being inadequate as a defense against
- both.
-
-
-
-
- JD>---
- JD> * PCB/UseNet Gateway from Sparkware #1
-
-
- JD>yHEADER:USENET
-
- JD>Newsgroups: sci.military
- JD>Path: dosgate!canrem!uunet.ca!uunet!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!my
- JD>From: jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
- JD>Subject: Re: helos vs. tanks
- JD>Message-ID: <Bzs8pM.LAr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- JD>Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- JD>Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
- JD>References: <BzM9oC.Lx6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- JD>Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:34 GMT
- JD>Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- JD>Lines: 40
- ---
- ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
- --
- Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
- World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
-
-