flamingknives Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I agree that the missile doesn't have good penetration but now we don't have an AT weapon that can engage targets at over 2500m. Isn't that a capability gap or am I missing out on something obvious? Well, you go from an ATGM that was ineffective against modern targets and only capable of hitting something between 1000m and 4000m, to one that is effective against all targets out to 2500m. If you need to KO targets beyond 2.5km then you have Typhoon, Tornado and Harrier capable of carrying Brimstone and Apache carrying Hellfire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Fair enough - I suppose I come from the Soviet school of thought: Never rely on air support! For the moment at least, NATO doesn't have to worry about that one. In my ideal world you could put a modern warhead like the one on the Israeli spike on the missile and the vehicle is good for another 5-10 years. I don't know who it would be used on though... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 There is still an issue with rapidly obsolescing rocket motors and limited fire control that means that anything inside 1000m can't really be hit. Would have been nice to try, but something of a fiction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.