From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: helos vs. tanks
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:32:58 GMT


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

Newsgroups: sci.military