Military Review

In the United States are being tested universal rocket launcher

50
In the United States, the next stage of testing the universal MML launcher, created by military engineers without the participation of defense enterprises, has been successfully completed under the program "The ability to protect against fire from closed positions" (FPC Inc 2-I, Block 1) reports Look with reference to Defense News.




“Ammunition launches were carried out in late March - early April of this year. The tests are recognized as successful. MML is fully developed by army engineers without the participation of defense companies, ”the portal said.

It is noted that "in the MML test series, the AIM-9X Sidewinder of the air-to-air class and the MHTK small anti-aircraft missile were launched." During the test launches, one of the missiles hit a cruise target missile.

“The development of MML is being carried out as part of the US Army’s universalization program for air defense systems. In addition to the already tested two types of ammunition, MML was also designed to launch anti-aircraft missiles from the FIM-92 Stinger complex and AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, ”the report says.

To date, $ 119 million has already been spent on the development of MML. According to the developers, "a universal launcher charged simultaneously with several types of missiles can be used to intercept cruise missiles, artillery shells, mortar mines, unmanned aerial vehicles and unguided missiles."
Photos used:
U.S. Army
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Byshido_dis
    Byshido_dis April 12 2016 15: 36
    +5
    It seems to me alone that the armored KAMAZ is used as a base?)))

    15 guides in the form of closed containers, I'm afraid that the installation will break very often due to weather conditions, rain / snow. There are also obvious difficulties in maintenance, in the field it will be very difficult to service it. Any stray fragment along the container will lead to a complete replacement of the entire container, since it is clear that it is solid. It looks completely irrational layout. I think this is a passing project and something more worthy will have to wait only after additional injections, I think 550-800 million dollars, and two or three times more for the next installation. In general, another unprofitable project and cut the dough ...
    But the idea of ​​unifying ammunition for use in various environments is interesting.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 12 2016 15: 47
      0
      Well, of course, but with our complexes this is impossible. 119 million - somehow the guys modestly sawing.
      1. Byshido_dis
        Byshido_dis April 12 2016 15: 54
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        Well, of course, but with our complexes this is impossible. 119 million - somehow the guys modestly sawing.

        Did I say something about our complexes? And so for the sake of example, can you give a cut of money on designing a complex in Russia?
        1. just exp
          just exp April 12 2016 16: 15
          +2
          Tell me, do our S-400s have a "seemingly rational layout"?
          and will not a stray splinter lead to the replacement of the entire installation (the "whole" installation, the same whole as the container on the American installation)?
        2. opus
          opus April 12 2016 16: 18
          +5
          Quote: Byshido_dis
          And so for the sake of example, can you give a cut of money on designing a complex in Russia?

          pile

          (as we get it, the tender / bid disappears)


          According to Vera Chistova, Deputy Chairman of the Accounts Chamber, transparency of corporate procedures in integrated structures is insufficient.
          “Based on the results of our inspections, including the UAC, USC, we found that the existing asset ownership schemes are horizontally and vertically confused. Daughters, granddaughters ... " - Vera Chistova said to the deputies of the State Duma, speaking in the framework of the “Government Hour”

          According to her, the issue of long terms for R&D is also problematic: “R&D continues for 7–10 years, then they close, new ones open, almost on the same subject. They again last 4–5 years. As a result, the cost of this R&D is increasing. ”
        3. Tusv
          Tusv April 12 2016 16: 33
          +2
          Quote: Byshido_dis
          And so for the sake of example, can you give a cut of money on designing a complex in Russia?

          Oh this is a classic! For Armor and Vityazi sawed the budget at Abu Dhabi and Seoul. And they say that the Russians are not practical repeat
      2. just exp
        just exp April 12 2016 16: 13
        +1
        Duc development is conducted by military engineers, without the participation of weapons companies. if they were developing. then the price tag would be different.
      3. ispaniard
        ispaniard April 12 2016 22: 59
        +1
        Missiles- Sidewinder and Stinger on artillery blanks to beat?!? And what is the idea, but then it would be better to immediately shoot down artillery shells -F-35mi wassat the enemy is simply OH ... L would have surrendered voluntarily from such extravagance of the Americans!
        The idea itself is good, but its execution (or rather the cost of money) is ...
    2. gergi
      gergi April 12 2016 15: 54
      0
      Well, why do you tell them? Let them turnip themselves. One hundred more lemons combed.
    3. opus
      opus April 12 2016 15: 58
      +8
      Quote: Byshido_dis
      bases used armored KAMAZ?)))

      not KAMAZ


      This is the Stewart & Stevenson M1088 A1R MTV Tractor Truck (converted by Austria's Steyr 12M18)


      Quote: Byshido_dis
      installation will break down very often due to weather conditions, rain / snow

      Why?

      AIM-9X itself on the "drum" operating temperature range: -46 ° to 71 ° , dynamic head at a carrier speed of up to 2,5 M, pressure from 1 atm to 0,1 atm, rain, snow, fog, icing, dust, sand during take-off.

      1. opus
        opus April 12 2016 16: 01
        +11
        TPK in general all FSUs (blow with a sledgehammer will probably withstand)



        TPK, ALL separate, no problems whatsoever

        Quote: Byshido_dis
        Any stray shard on the container

        The close undermining of the warhead model warrants the failure of the entire launcher. But the same thing with the S-300, S-400, Beech, etc.


        Quote: Byshido_dis
        It looks completely irrational layout.


        ?
        and this?

        so you can say about anyone.

        Quote: Byshido_dis
        Another unprofitable project and cut the dough.

        Are you a tax payer in the US budget?
        No?
        HAPPY NECESSARY.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 12 2016 16: 14
          +3
          I agree with everything, besides this -
          Quote: opus
          Are you a tax payer in the US budget?
          No?
          HAPPY NECESSARY.
          100 yards of our "money box" in the US GKO, the last contribution to Treasuries in February 2016, 4.8 billion. Doll.
          1. opus
            opus April 12 2016 16: 32
            +6
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            100 yards of our "money box" in the US GKO, the last contribution to Treasuries in February 2016, 4.8 billion. Doll.

            Do you think that if we squeak and moan about the cut of the American budget, then the NWF will return to us?
            This question is for Naebulin


            ------------------------
            Investing in American securities is always "impressive" to me.
            Apparently I'm dumb in life.

            1. The NWF "lies" mostly in category 1 securities (receipts of the FRS, ECB)
            Issuer's rates 0,50% -FED, ECB 0.00% now -0.05% March 2016.
            Accordingly, our profitability is the same (or minus the discount)
            2. Our money is there, the Fed or the ECB lends to its banks (cashless in a computer, for our cash for goods), i.e. for our money from proceeds (oil, gas, export) to their enterprises go for 0,25% -1,5% ANNUAL.
            They have loan rates of 1-1,25%, cars in Germany now offer loans with a NEGATIVE rate (there are some), and so at 0% -0,5%

            3. We have a Central Bank of 11%, enterprises (the same defense industry) are credited at 16% (good), and so are the norms. 18% -20% (they will also take out the brain).
            Question: who tries and for what purpose?
            and how to achieve that the cost of our products (defense industry, and indeed industry) would be cheaper than theirs ...
            if?
            if our lending rate is 20 times higher, and the loan rate itself is approaching profitability?
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 April 12 2016 17: 05
              +3
              Quote: opus
              Question: who tries and for what purpose?

              A banal tribute. After the defeat in the Cold War, it would have been foolish to either not finish us off or not control us. The castles of the thieving officials and the placement of the "money-box" only confirm their control. It’s unpleasant to realize this, but I don’t see any other conclusions. I remember the movie "They Live". hi
            2. Xsanchez
              Xsanchez April 12 2016 22: 56
              +2
              Who of the living people remembers Judah Gaidar? He had organized the genocide of pensioners at 91? Having driven the country into a terrible famine of 91 years, when he publicly announced that in 3 months they would release food prices? Traders immediately removed all goods from the shelves, waiting for new high prices .When the goods appeared, everyone was fucked up by prices. And collateral auctions? So, he had a deputy. and a like-minded person, guess who? Ulyukaev! Instead of decaying somewhere in uranium or molybdenum mines, it drives our economy! He also wants to grab what remains. I do not want to write a lot, think for yourself.
        2. Byshido_dis
          Byshido_dis April 12 2016 16: 24
          0
          Here is another photo I found interesting ...

          Are you a tax payer in the US budget?
          No?
          HAPPY NECESSARY.


          I am happy) For the rest of the arguments, the fact that the TPK is separate in the first photo is not visible. So perhaps I agree with you. In terms of operation, I repeat that any damage judging by the layout will lead to the inoperability of the entire complex, do not forget about the trailer behind which looks like a field kitchen in general)
          1. opus
            opus April 12 2016 16: 41
            +1
            Quote: Byshido_dis
            the first photo is not visible.

            And I agree. And "-" to the author without a twinge of conscience.
            -3 days ago there was an article (chewing chewed)
            - such an impression, if only to squeeze, even "not to raise the opu", no photos of worthy, no on the topic, just to have time to squeeze
            Quote: Byshido_dis
            In terms of operation, I repeat that any damage judging by the layout will lead to the inoperability of the entire complex,


            hardly.
            Let’s take a look at the S-200 report, its charms in Libya simply repelled (antennas and)





            But?

            And you mean the "crazy shard"


            ======================
            In my opinion, this is a cheap and high-quality solution.
            AIM-9 x HZS pieces riveted. 150 000?
        3. Byshido_dis
          Byshido_dis April 12 2016 16: 26
          +1
          All the same, it seems to me that TPK is very flimsy
          1. Byshido_dis
            Byshido_dis April 12 2016 16: 31
            0
            http://www.waaytv.com/redstone_alabama/video-here-is-a-look-at-all-those-mml-mis
            sile/article_a425e834-fdb6-11e5-8fd9-0f8b4ad70c28.html

            By the way, here is a video from the tests
          2. opus
            opus April 12 2016 16: 57
            +2
            Quote: Byshido_dis
            All the same, it seems to me that TPK is very flimsy

            at the White Sands training ground, after tests

            another opinion.


            I doubt that this option




            less "durable"
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Viktor_24reg
      Viktor_24reg April 13 2016 04: 31
      +1
      A set of cheers-patriotic offers. Dear Bushido, how much can you write like that? It might be better to keep silent, and not carry nonsense ?!
  2. Vadim237
    Vadim237 April 12 2016 15: 39
    +3
    They create their own version of the Carapace, but the universal launcher for anti-tank systems and missiles is something new.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 12 2016 15: 44
      +5
      but the universal launcher for anti-tank systems and missiles is something new.

      The only question is, where does this apply? Universal PU is quite interesting, but will it be effective to carry such a bunch of missiles with you? Usually the task is posed quite specific.
      The United States has embarked on the path of arms versatility — a curve track I must say.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 12 2016 15: 55
        0
        Well, why is there a curve - there are fewer cars to carry around that are designed for different purposes, versatility in service - again, lower costs, just missiles for various purposes, you just need to unify it with a multiple launch rocket system.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak April 12 2016 16: 00
          +3
          universality in service - again lower costs, just missiles for various purposes

          Yes, all this will be good only if only containers with missiles are the same, and the cars are different. ATGM is figuratively speaking, "drove out, found a target, hit, dumped as soon as possible" you can get by with optics, but the air defense system is no longer so, it should not defend itself, but the object entrusted to it. You will not run away, radars are already needed with masts.
          1. Egen
            Egen April 13 2016 05: 34
            0
            and here it’s still interesting, shooting at ground and air targets is a different thing in general. How to teach a gunner? I don’t know about anti-aircraft guns, but they taught me to shoot from ATGMs not to say that for a couple of days, but for airborne ones I would even xs how to tackle. True, it was 25 years ago, maybe now like in computer toys - I brought up a button, pressed it, and that's it? :)
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. mishaia_23
        mishaia_23 April 12 2016 15: 55
        0
        It will be like with a universal F-35
        F-35A (with standard take-off and landing), F-35B (with short take-off and vertical landing) and F-35C (take-off from the deck of an aircraft carrier using a catapult, and landing on deck - using an aerofinisher)
        And the result is ... zero
        Not finalizing the project ...
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 12 2016 16: 00
          0
          But as with the F 35, it definitely won’t be with it - from the novelty there is only a launcher and control and guidance systems - all missiles have long been in service and in series.
      3. Cheshire
        Cheshire April 12 2016 16: 01
        0
        The only question is, where is this applicable?

        Offhand - ships, stationary protection systems. It is possible to place such launch modules in the newly created Barguzin air defense missile complex.
        By modest sizes, container execution is possible.
        US has taken the path of arms versatility

        There is an undeniable plus (unification).
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak April 12 2016 16: 33
          +3
          Offhand - ships, stationary object protection systems

          It's clear. I don’t really understand why to push different rockets on one machine? Guidance systems are different, target speeds are different, and tactics are different.
          But in the end they will still run into a limitation - the size of the TPK. And you have to make a new system on new media.
      4. Xsanchez
        Xsanchez April 13 2016 01: 37
        0
        We, in Russia, already have a universal platform with missiles for various purposes, though supplemented by an artillery mount, called the Terminator. On a tank chassis (+ off-road, and autonomy), but without such a huge ammunition depot, on a defenseless chassis armed with near-radius weapons .If it happened that they won’t even be able to get away. They repeat the story with the FU-35, damn it all, but it carries a little with it (nudibranch, in our opinion), so you have to drag a bomber behind it, stuffed with missiles by the very pamper. fu-35 will detect, point, and They will shoot from the arsenal, which will be nearby. Well, firstly, the range of our missiles is not less, and often more, and who will be shot down is not hard to guess. Secondly, what’s the sneakiness of the fu-35, if the bomber is visible on radars from very far away, in short , did not think through the very concept of application.
  3. Cheshire
    Cheshire April 12 2016 15: 40
    +4
    In my opinion, the Russian concept of a missile-cannon complex (Shell) is more suitable for combating drones and mines, including the criterion of the cost of a shot.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 12 2016 15: 42
      +2
      To combat mines by the criterion of value, it’s vryatli.
      1. Cheshire
        Cheshire April 12 2016 15: 52
        +3
        All the same, in my opinion, it is cheaper to shoot from a barrel weapon than to launch missiles. Yes, and somehow reload easier and faster.
        However, maybe I'm wrong. hi
  4. vch62388
    vch62388 April 12 2016 15: 43
    +2
    My personal opinion is that spending a guided missile to intercept a mortar is a whim. Or "drank" funds to create this "wunderwafele".
    1. Xsanchez
      Xsanchez April 12 2016 23: 19
      0
      Interestingly, it is even theoretically impossible to intercept a mine, let alone a hypersonic missile: the following conditions are necessary — the speed of operation of the deployed radar + electronics complex is instant (and this will never happen), the speed of the interceptor missile should be at least 2-3 times faster than the target (here, on the contrary: the projectile and the mine fly faster than the rockets), well, the radar itself must be able to detect a target with a reflecting surface of 0.001 m2, the destruction of the mine or projectile is possible only with kinetic destruction, fragments and you cannot throw them off the trajectory by the shock wave. The percentage of missile hit even in a slowly flying target ranges from 0,3-0,5. All 6 factors indicate that scientists again invented crap for a budget drink. Nothing to discuss.
  5. Achilles
    Achilles April 12 2016 15: 44
    +2
    Apparently, this installation can only work in a certain sector, if someone flies from the side or back, this installation
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 12 2016 15: 56
      0
      Or maybe she has a circular - radar and optical guidance system.
  6. mpzss
    mpzss April 12 2016 15: 48
    +2
    by car, unlike our "Pantsir", there is no radar, therefore, at least one car with a radar is needed, which IMPORTANTLY reduces the efficiency of decision-making and mobility!
    And you can generally forget about the work of the complex in motion!
    Thank God that our designers are one step, or even two, ahead of these overseas "freaks"!
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 12 2016 15: 56
      0
      And you can generally forget about the work of the complex in motion!

      As well as about the team "quickly dump" when working as an ATGM.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 12 2016 16: 05
        -1
        And what to quickly blame - the installation is universal just from all the threats - in the first row of the ATGM in the second SAM in the third MLRS missile.
  7. vch62388
    vch62388 April 12 2016 15: 54
    +1
    My imagination paints me a picture of the battlefield. On our side - a platoon "Vasilkov", on the amerskaya - about 300 meters from the frontline this miracle of engineering thought (range 2B9 - 4 km). Interception of mortar mines is nonsense. In their desire to warm their hands on the military budget, they will sink to the interception of machine-gun bullets ...
  8. igorek4515
    igorek4515 April 12 2016 16: 09
    0
    It somehow resembles the Israeli "Iron Dome" only in the mobile version ..
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 12 2016 16: 59
      +4
      Rather, the Speeder.
      Spider has 2 types of missiles of the same diameter.
    2. Silkway0026
      Silkway0026 April 12 2016 20: 01
      +2
      Like "Iron Bonce Dome "? I don’t understand, is it also important for Pindos to knock down sewer pipes?
  9. Forever so
    Forever so April 12 2016 16: 47
    0
    rockets, mock-ups, all garbage, the main thing is that there would be a heated toilet, a soft car and cola with cooling in the glove compartment.
  10. igorek4515
    igorek4515 April 12 2016 17: 39
    0
    Spider has 2 types of missiles of the same diameter.

    And both are based on air-to-air missiles, one Python-5, the second Derby.
  11. morprepud
    morprepud April 12 2016 18: 52
    0
    MML is fully developed by army engineers without the participation of defense companies
    , and these "engineers" should be soaked, and soaked, and soaked, ... and as much as possible ... "On the corner", and especially those who fled from Russia! angry
  12. vglazunov
    vglazunov April 12 2016 20: 49
    0
    The photo in the article reminds me of a garbage truck on the background of a flying caliber laughing
  13. sharp-lad
    sharp-lad April 12 2016 21: 38
    0
    "Infections" do not sleep! They don't want to be left behind.