Nydaria wrote:Purpelia,
We seem to have both to many of the same conclusions on a flexible weapon system. However, you should noted that the CMS also replaces short SAMs and has the considerable ad hoc datalink capacity which provides some indirect benefits to a simple launcher.
If you read about the 9K1 you will notice that the unit does not actually contain any sensors, just a targeting computer that works with data from where ever it may come along.
9K1 wrote:The computer takes input in terms of environmental factors and target data either from a console on the side or through a cable connection to an external source like a battery command vehicle and based on them calculates the required elevation and traverse angle required to hit the target.
So the idea is pretty much the same. I just did not feel the need to write up half a page worth of text to explain an USB port.
Also, in my newest revisions (not yet posted sadly but stay tuned) I am making a Spike LR derived missile variant for it.
The CMS also fires its missiles vertically before they assume a profile.
That I would argue is a disadvantage and not an advantage. As my launcher fires its missiles at regular angles it can expel the recoil into the air behind it thus making it reconciles. This allows it to be fired safely from the backs of vehicles, ships and soft ground safely. By comparison your launcher drives all the propellant gases directly into the ground or if mounted on a vehicle into the vehicle it self. This means that you will either have to launch missiles at a low initial velocity (thus making it only really useful for guided munitions at limited ranges) or fire it from very sturdy platforms indeed. Plus, since your system has no method of adjusting the firing angle it means that it is incapable of firing unguided projectiles thus making it far less flexible for ground applications. And the 9K1 can fire its missiles at a very high elevation of 57° (for the towed launcher variant) and probably higher elevations for the vehicle mounted ones.
Finally, the 9K1 is in theory also capable of replacing short range IR SAM systems but I gave up on designing such a missile for it for the simple reason that it was pointless. AA work really requires dedicated crews, missiles and equipment. So while you could have the capability to aim your AA from one spot and launch it from another it would be vastly inferior to simply launching from a dedicated platform like the Soviet 9K22. Plus with the limited range of light AA missiles you would pretty much have to hope that both the target and your guidance module are all in the same narrow targeting circle.
Your system seems to be a more complete ground-attack system able to provide LOS and NLOS capability and a variety of warheads. It also appears to have downtime associated with setup before launch. The CMS requires no setup time and carries the anti-aircraft missiles, giving vehicles with access to either their own radar or associated radar pictures, the ability to defend themselves from aircraft.
Unless it is vehicle mounted in which case no setup is required. The setup stats as well as the carriage are as noted in the thread for the towed version intended for use by my airborne and mountain divisions. My regular army uses this:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/70757389/ExportTest_00014.png which could due to the recoilless nature of the launcher probably even fire on the move.
Finally, like the CMS, the 9K1 has innate disadvantages over purpose-built weaponry that it replaces, either due to minimum range, targeting, cost, etc.
That is true. Hence we both need to focus on using it not as a replacement but as a supplement. Use it to aid and reinforce and not to replace.
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:49 pm
