>Army Future Command's Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team continues to focus on providing lethal capabilities for the future fight. In a recent demo at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, the Army fired a SPIKE Non-Line-Of-Sight missile from a U.S. AH-64E Apache. The team hit its target 5/5 times from distances four times greater than our current capability. This long-range precision munition provides the Army the stand-off it needs from enemy threats in future Multi-Domain Operations
Its sort of garbage, Brits have a better system for cheaper.
But I guess anything is better than nothing even if its a POS. Even fucking russians got a NLOS before we did.
Tyler Hill
Nothing in that video states that they have picked it. Just that they are evaluating it. Wich doesnt mean anything since they evaluate a shitload of things every year, most of wich never end up beeing ordered
Andrew Brown
>Even fucking russians got a NLOS before we did.
You are aware the Hellfire doesn't require line of sight to fire, right?
Tyler Brooks
/thread
Easton Edwards
>Its sort of garbage, Brits have a better system for cheaper
"muh anglo master race"
Aaron Wright
Correct me if Im wrong but theNLOS can be defined as: 1. Ground to ground missile. 2. Beyond horizon ranges. 3. Guided by FAC or self. And point of NLOS is to replace an artillery response to CAS since we dont have aircraft for that anymore, basically: >20 shells of arty not hitting the enemy, accidentally hitting friendlies, or both With >one precision strike hitting enemy exactly With the tradeoff being slightly higher price. Actually I was surprised how cheap it can be with just converted rocket arty, probably cheaper than the arty strike with $400 per shell.
Is that an accurate impression?
Gabriel Turner
We have ground based Hellfire? Since when??
Im sorry but it is actually better.
Christian Wright
This. What normally happens is that A request will be made for a piece of equipment, during that time a branch will then evaluate existing products and then using that as a basis for what they want the new equipment to be like, sometimes one of the pieces of kit that was purchased will then be modified to fit those design requirements
Michael Robinson
You arent counting the payroll of artillery people into your calculation of price. This system is MUCH cheaper per destroyed enemy target.
Ryan Carter
they don't, bongs are also using Spike
Carter Thomas
>We have ground based Hellfire? Since when??Not that guy, and not US service, but ground fired Hellfires has been a thing for 25+ years
Yes but youre comparing that price to the artillery crews full payroll from the last time they did a shooting to this one. They are what, 12 guys? Thats about $200-$300 per hour , money thats being absorbed even when the system isnt being used.
These missiles have one fixed cost, store them in a warehouse and you dont have to pay anyone in peacetime.
Aiden Reyes
See I read NLOS and thought back to Futureweapons, which made me imagine an NLOS cannon on an airborne platform.
Nobody, i repeat, nobody uses missiles for intelligence. Thats pure marketing wank.
Cameron Sanchez
They have Iskander which has top attack submunition.
Thomas Martin
Kornet has overfly top attack mode like Bill 2.
Jason Lopez
IMPRESSIVE
Aaron Campbell
>Only compatible with a certain type of projectile
Oh come on, China has Krasnopol fuse and Dinamika which has the same capability of Excalibur only far cheaper. Now they also have Ramjet assisted fuse. While America is stuck in '80s level of fuses.
Isaiah Bennett
Nobody would launch one for the purpose. But it's a nice bonus to have a camera taking in the landscape and then zeroing in on the target area, where you learn there are 3 more T-72s than you thought.
Ryder Rogers
So in your mind the system is trucked to the range, unfolded and set up by a dozen guys drilling holes in the ground to secure it, these guys then crack open crates of missile warheads, screw seekers into the warhead and put it in the missile tube. Then they add a canister which holds the missile fuel and squirt the fuel in by nozzle like at a gas tank. Then the missile tube is precisely aligned by a dude turning a crank, listening to guy who shouts commands based on another guy doing math while yet another guy uses radio to talk to people on the far end.
These are the personnel you envisage using a containerized missile system.
Leo Harris
>Brimstone lacks man-in-the-loop capacity and the optics that Spike has. lol thats such a merchant thing to say.
Imagine saying that Javelin missile lacks the man-in-the-loop capacity of an RPG-7.
Blake Phillips
Every one of their rocket arty systems has a top attack variant.
Camden Gutierrez
An RPG-7 doesn't have man-in-the-loop. Every warhead is dumb. What are you even saying?
Eli Ortiz
It's a fucking ballistic missile that burns out in like 4 seconds. How else do you think it would attack? Fucking subterranean?
That would be interesting, given it's incomparable with the guidance system and basic design of the weapon.
Owen Jackson
The man is the only thing in the loop, it has no other system of guidance. There goes the myth of jewish IQ....
Chase Jones
Man in the loop refers to post-launch guidance, like you get with a TOW, Mavrick or Kornet.
Jaxon Price
There is no man guiding a PG-7XX rocket you glue sniffing moron.
Dylan Barnes
not really, BLACKED porn is mostly just popular in the US and Western Europe
Jaxson Harris
>Nothing in your post is true.
It's funny you say that because Brimstone 2 and 3 are larger than Hellfires, Brimstone 2 has only been used on fixed wing aircraft and Brimstone 3 is still in development.
Brimstone is not Brimstone 2 or Brimstone 3
Gabriel Russell
SACLOS could be argued to be a form on man in the loop but they require a direct line of sight to the target.
Chase Carter
5 guys run an m777. You wont get lower than that for an NLOS.
Ian Sullivan
>rocket artillery using submunitions are a top attack ATGM
Kornet does not have an overflight top attack variant.
Aaron Smith
There's nothing to be argued about it. SACLOS is MITL by definition. MITL doesn't imply NLOS.
Brody Myers
why do you know so much about interracial porn?
Ayden Williams
Incorrect, with a SACLOS the launch unit guides the missile.
Noah Lewis
And the operator can at any time throw the missile into the ground, since the course is determined by the operator.
Alexander Hill
SACLOS does not need human input at any point in time after firing, whereas man in the loop requires human input.
Aaron Bailey
MITL doesn't need, nor does it imply the necessity for, human input. It only allows for its potential. It can be the sum total of its guidance, or one among many guidance options.
Zachary Thompson
Man in the loop refers to any man in the decision loop to use a weapon. RPG definitely doesnt make autonomous choices, you mutilated penis you....
Zachary Fisher
There were two in the apache that launched it....
>Kornet does not have an overflight top attack variant. Why would it need one, it can wreck any tank on earth from the worst possible angle.
Aaron Jenkins
Man in the loop in this context is not limited to Spike missile.
Dominic Richardson
>Develop super deadly non line of sight missile system that maximizes the use of multi domain warfare >*Get's all of your systems jammed by Ivan shitposting hardbass on every single radio frequency for hundreds of Kilometers* You guys realize that any potential conflict involving peer to peer or near peer adversaries is going to devolve almost immediate to analog era weaponry due to the abundance of electronic warfare?
Man in the loop means literally any man, the forward guy lasering the target is a man in the loop. If Brimstone can make decisions itself about whether or not to attack a target it sees, then thats 'lacking' a man in the loop.
Which would be massive advancement over Spike, not something you can quote as though its a flaw.
Thats what youre being laughed at for.
Charles Phillips
That's... not what MITL means. At all. How are you so mindbogglingly retarded? It's like a pugnacious stupidity. Almost hard to quantify.
By your definition the choice to fire a Brimstone makes it man in the loop.
John Bennett
Its a common phrase, not a military definition for a guidance system. If you want to abbreviate it, it should be MIL.
Yes but it would lack a man in the loop when it comes to decising whether to fire.
Justin Wright
>the forward guy lasering the target is a man in the loop. No he fucking isn't. MITL is EXCLUSIVELY manual guidance or the potential for manual guidance after launch by an operator. That's it. The beginning and end. Any guidance where a digital system wholly decides the flight path isn't MITL. A guy with a laser is just deciding the target, not controlling the missile. >Which would be massive advancement over Spike Until Brimstone hits something you didn't want it to hit, which a human operator could have avoided. >not a military definition for a guidance system The market and militaries have collectively settled on MITL or variants thereof. Acronyms are faster to type, hence my use. >it would lack a man in the loop when it comes to decising whether to fire The computer doesn't decide to fire Brimstone by itself. The decision is made by humans. Not that it changes its nature as purely F&F.
Charles Jones
No, you basically took a common english term and tried to use it to insult a far superior weapon system. You were then told off, and you doubled down and started to abbreviate it so it sounds more military... Thinking, I dont know, that it would intimidate me into agreeing? With an acronym? I dont know, it was stupid of you either way.
Man in the loop means man in the loop, it is a self descriptive term. There is no guidance system known as MIL, and if there were it would be a freaking downgrade over AI terminal decision making which is the holy grail of missile guidance.
>A guy with a laser is just deciding the target, not controlling the missile. Fucking lol. Does this sentence sound logical in yiddish or something?
Jose Collins
Anyway going to sleep now, I cant wait half an hour for you to get your next word salad (WS) together.
Jeremiah Reed
How is that thing working out for you, what type of warhead do you use? We are looking to replace our old Hellfires soon, and this might just do the trick.
Angel Garcia
Just accept that you have no clue what MTL in this context means. Its a very common term, used by anyone selling missiles, and even if it doesent fit what MTL originally meant that doesnt mean jack shit.
Charles Allen
They look interesting at least. Havent tested them though.
>No, you basically took a common english term MITL has a very specific connotation. It means nothing outside it. It is capacity for direct human control (with the obvious caveat it's always fly-by-wire). Get it through your skull. >and tried to use it to insult a far superior weapon system. Brimstone isn't a wholly superior system dumbass. Again, you lack capacity to take control over the projectile once it's out. In that regard, it's a strict downgrade. >Thinking, I dont know, that it would intimidate me into agreeing? No, it's just annoying to type it out each time. Your persecution complex is noted though. >it is a self descriptive term MITL refers, and only refers, to the capacity for manual control once it has been launched. It does not mean "The operator designates the target". That is not controlling the missile itself, or everything that we do would technically be MITL, including automated systems that fire on their own, since the code monkeys writing are human themselves. Even the retard above claiming the RPG-7 is "MITL" would be right. >and if there were it would be a freaking downgrade over AI terminal decision making ...Until it hits a target you didn't want it to hit, either because of an operator or system error.
You are continually refusing to acknowledge this is a term of art, and open to interpretation. breakingdefense.com/2011/08/army-wants-man-in-the-loop-on-armed-uas-ops/ Militaries and the defense industry broadly both recognize this term (or use terms which are functionally identical and mean the same thing). You don't. That's fine, but don't unload your ignorance on others please.
>US refuses to buy foreign military gear >unless it comes from:
You could have had Brimstone.
Brayden Smith
America uses a lot of foreign gear my ignorant friend.
Hunter Adams
Yeah. Just look at all them german rockets. They even got you on the moon.
Connor Jones
Thank you for the example of ignorance.
Hunter Diaz
lmao britbongs ITT mad daddy USA doesn't want their shitty missile
Christian Ramirez
The reason it's desirable for the NLOS is because the Javelin operator will always see his target before he launches whereas that's not necessarily true with an NLOS weapon, by definition if it's not in NLOS mode. When firing swarms of Brimstones the gunner literally doesn't know which targets are going to be hit.
Tyler Baker
ie - A total meme buzzword add on that is at best a once in a blue moon trick to do on one missile launch.
Meanwhile Brimstones are out there firing 24 networked missile swarms from 40km (helo launch) away, eradicating entire convoys in less than half a minute.
Yeah, nice comparison.
Jaxson King
Brimstone 2 is the one in the picture, and has been in service for years now.
Brimstone 3 can be fired from anything that uses Brimstone 2.
Leo Green
>total meme buzzword add on that is at best a once in a blue moon trick >Entirely reliant on algorithms to hit intended targets, no potential for human correction >Can't hit targets of opportunity outside what the database presents >Can't abort mission But who'd want to do any of those things, amirite? >Brimstone 2 is the one in the picture Not quite. It's the Future Attack Helicopter Weapon, which is based on Brimstone 2, but can only travel 20km. It's also still in development. Ditto Brimstone 3.
The US already has AGM-179 JAGM as its Brimstone equivalent. They're looking at SPIKE NLOS for a different capability to supplement Hellfire and JAGM. Same reasons the UK itself was using SPIKE NLOS along with Hellfire and Brimstone in Afghanistan - it is more useful for a certain mission set, though not necessarily as useful for some of the things Brimstone/JAGM/Hellfire would be employed to do
Ayden Gutierrez
>Future Attack Helicopter Weapon FAHW has been put on ice. No funding allocated for the past 2 years. Hellfire is on the books to be procured another 20 years, which should take it right up to Apache's retirement.
Likely Boeing/Lockheed/Congress has decided to block Brimstone integration on Apache because it will compete internationally with JAGM. Same as they nixed Brimstone and PWIV integration on Reaper. Prompting the switch to Protector, which we have full access to and can integrate any systems we see fit.
Cooper Thomas
Stop posting
Gavin Brooks
>Will this help deal with illegal immigration? No it will be used to kill evil white supremacist who want racist boarders. Also the us military is only for fighting israels wars and provide u.s. tax payer funded services to everyone on earth OTHER then americans.
