This system was designed and meant to be AA defense for armored units in the Cold War era battle environment of Europe. This was actually the better one. Being mounted on the Bradley chassis vice the M113 it could keep up with the armor. Probably obsolete by now.
@merc190d Yes, But it won the Contract by Cheating, I was there during the Shoot-out in the late 80's at Oscura Range Camp between 3 other systems up for that 7 billion dollar contract, Roland System, by Hughes Roland, Liberty System by Chance Vought & Rapier by British Aerospace, I was on the Roland System, The ADATS Contractors helped during the test by spotting for the ADATS crew using Civilian walki-talki's and had a script of what aircraft would be flying against them.
@merc190d You should have seen What Hughes Roland was going to do with theirs before ADATS won the Contract, Theirs was going to be mounted on an M1 Abrams Chassis with 10 missiles and were the 120 mm gun used to be? would have been a GUA 8 Avenger 30 MM, The Turret was going to be enlarged to encompass the Rolands Cylinder type Missile Storage 1 on each side with the reload hatch, 2 missiles ready to fire and 9 sec. to reload from the Cylinder.
Such missiles do not exist, even though the missile is quite capable of destroying Abrams that burned in Iraq from the old Bulgarian RPG-7 sample of 1963. Even no need to wait for it already happened. What YOU hope has nothing not interested. Buy a brain. All modern tanks perfectly protected against cumulative ammunition except M-1 of course hahahaha.
@DisgorgeKILLusa3 Sorry, but you are incorrect, Though I dislike the ADATS System, I was there in Oscura Range Base Camp in New Mexico / White Sands Missile range, during the late 1980's.
The ADATS can Defeat with it's Missile all Current Warsaw pact Armor, I have seen this tested myself against Armor that was as Thick as the T-72/80
I dislike the System because It's crew cheated on the Evaluation test, and it was covered up for political considerations.
@slickyboy40 No I'm right. The T-80 uses a honeycomb-type ceramic armor NERA of the third generation in principle, it can not be broken by cumulative warhead with a slight cumulative effect and penetrating as ADATS, this is air defense system and it can deal only with very obsolete tanks with a homogeneous armor. T-80UM3 can easily withstand even a much more powerful ATGM like Hellfire 2 or LOSAT.
@DisgorgeKILLusa3 You're aware what does 'can withstand' mean? Appart from areas protected by reactive armor there are many that are not. Even if team inside survives a hit, the tank will require serious repairs to get combat-worthy again, and if it's hit in roughly same spot it's done.
@fresherty Oh my god man please learn a facts ok. You do not even understand what you mean, cumulative ammunition against NERA (not reactive armor) of the third generation are totally and completely ineffective. Since the tank will be not damage and no one will die, even if many hits, all "repairs" will consist in a fast replacement of a module with recovery vehicles on the battlefield.
Excellent video. See my channel electric motor new design.It is very original model of electric motor (it has no accelerating coil, special phase-shifting devices and condensers).
@BackBlocks09 NO you don't keep the laser on the target , you keep the cross-airs on the target tho. its like the TOW missile launcher but instead of a wire controlling the missile the movement commands are sent by diffused laser light, its like the talk on a fiber optic cable but with out the cable. If you have radar then the computer can track and direct the missile with out you holding a cross-airs on it.
Now if Stephen harper the only priminster to care about are military since the 80ds the troop levels will rise and we will get are equipment brand new and high tech not my hope is that the CCV project will go threw and the funding will raise to 30 billion over the next 20 years 27 28 are military will get 30 billion a year god bless Stephen Harper
@wasteofspace1234 well dumb ass u don't know much about the military do you did you know the Canadian forces is funded 21 billion dollars a year and how much new gear we get every year the ADATS were going to be replaced but apart of the project was to also replace are tanks with LAV MGS nested we canceled it and bout new and more tanks
I was a test crewman of a competitor to this in the acquisition tests. Interesting times. The whole short-range air defense concept has been a bit rough, with small heat-seekers apparently being the most successful. Guns have to be close to pointless (as fun as they were to shoot--Vulcans were hell on styrofoam targets!). Amazing that the Canadians kept at it for 20 years...
@BalBurgh We keep old and useless weapons because the government ties our hands. Canadian governments never give a damn about the Forces, so the forces can never upgrade its technology until decades after they want a change to be made. The money simply isn't made available to them, and we have our politicians to thank. It's an embarassing truth.
@wasteofspace1234 thats embarrasing that your country doesn't gives it's army steroids, since when have it been good to have an army that is designed to destroy... get the fuck outta here.
@TheNonConformative So India,Iran,The Ukraine & Pakistan have all joined NATO now? Don't be silly. America & NATO may have all that advanced tech,but Russian weapons have proven their reliability in combat,and attacking Russia would mean a pointless nuclear war,and the death of all life on this planet,making it uninhabitable. I hate it when you retards want to start war with a country that has nukes.
@25Milimeter I think you misunderstood my position completely. 1) I made it clear that the soviet union (and accordingly regarding russia as am enemy) no longer exists. 2) I am more than opposed to the NATO. At least since the kosovo "war" that alliance is a criminal henchman for USraeli interests.
Each war is lose for both sides. If you lose just one person its a lose. And to get blood on his own hands is a lose too. War is something newage selection of mordern beeing.
They list the functions like they are listing special features of a new car. I think we forget that this thing is made to kill people like you and me. :|
@sakoshooter48 wron i rode 1 at a canadian forces open house type thing 3 years ago except the model i was on didn't have the machine gun on top of it and had what seemed to be either grenade launchers or smoke screen maker( srry not sure the proper term) but thats kinda standard for Canadian forces because they usually do alot of modifications to vehicles and other weapons systems
Laser guided SAM is really dumb idea. Unlike Laser guided bombs, if jet outmaneuvers beam even by one inch there will be no reflection from the sky. So tracking lost.
Laser guided bomb for example still recieves reflection from the ground.
@kosiak10851 The Reflection from the target was not an issue, the ADATS used a laser beam rider system, meaning that the laser projected a grid towards the target with the missile receptors pointing towards the fire unit (ADATS) which guided it towards the target. It was also equipped with a proximity fuse so you didn’t need a direct hit to destroy the target.
@fixdeluxe1 what I want to say is laser beam is pretty easy to outmaneuver. ADATS system is not fire and forget unlike stinger it focuses laser on target all the time of missile flight. If laser loses target - missile fails. Thats why you cant track targets manually with MANPADS.
How good is this system for incoming missiles (both ATGMs and ASMs)?
It seems to be an excellent choice for a missile-boat, compact and able to defend itself and attack small enemy boats, although it would need a reloading system.
They should have already developed an infantry and vehicle standard SAATM(Surface-to-Air-Anti-Tank-Missile) long ago,using different methods of guidance but the same hit-to-kill missile.
It would give commanders a huge logistical breakthrough.
it seems the neutral swiss sale to the entiere world including china and russia and so that turet (shamelly mounted on bradeley)is great for destroy an stealth plane from usa but only with the optical sight and gun because i dont think the lazer designation work on special surface nanomaterial ;
so the gun is an option that is mounted after conception and look ridiculous so high and must be integrated in a side and replace a pack of four missiles (is enought 4 in ass)
@omnianti0 I doubt this thing could track targets through even light clouds. So definitely works against low flying helicopters, no chance against stealth fighters.
@TheCrazyFinn ok could with lazer designator is a problem and maybe only radar or optical fiber is efective ;
but stealth dont protect against 20mm gun if the lazer cant reflect on (what i doubt):
that turet is the goodness ever maybe a radar sight & 35mm gun will be a major improvement (more than dual gun panshir increasing useless cost and balance and weight )
the system was designed by switzerland & canada and mounted on the m113 . the usa trailed the system on the bradley with the addition of 25mm chain gun (vehical shown) but was not accepted for service .
I remember these when they came out. Yes they were on a M113 and didn't have the gun. Fist I have seen this. The missile could also pierce 1000mm of RHA so could be used in the anti tank role.
Still good enough to rip apart low-fyling aircraft and helicopters. They also gave it the ability to simply plug a couple of canisters with Stingers next to the guns, making it a combined system like the Tunguska.
It still can´t kill a MBT and the 35mm can kill anything below that. Not to mention that this is achieved at a considerable cost in price, weight, ammo capacity and complexity. Oh, and being more vulnerable to ECM and the like.
yes it can kill a mbt 1000mm of armour is alot of armour and it uses a laser grid to track the target ecm dont work against light and it is not much more expensive and you get alot more
It´s actually about 900mm penetration and any semi-modern MBT has a armor rating against HEAT in the league of 1200mm+
And yes, there are formsof ECM that are specifically designed to to disrupt laser targeting by sending back false signals.
And yeah, it isalot more expensive, a lot more complex (and thus more expensive in the long run) and doesn´t offer anything a cannon-based AA system can´t do.
newley developed grid laser system and 900mm of armous is alot how many tanks will the mmev face with 1200+mm of armous and it is alot better than a gun it at least can engage targets at over 4.5km and can take out bunkers and tanks at that and again it has basically the same systems as air defence guns just upgraded and with a little bit extra
Laser-targetting is an old hat and there are plenty ways to render it useless. And even a old T-72 with ERA has more than 900mm equivalent armor.
And 4.5 kmis nothing but a pipedream in nearly any terrain. Adn no,it can´t take out tanks. Save for 50´s leftovers that can get shredded by a 35mm, too.
your my friend are retarted i mean new gen further developenment ect.. and btw laser targeting wasnt 50 more like vietnam era it can and will take out tanks not brand new but not 50 era and at the same time you 35mm does less than adats and the range of the missle is 10km you 35mm from a ship ciws aka millenium revolver can do a max of 4.5km and thats surface targets 3km for airbourne
Yes this one isn't based on the M113 but the real ADATS (Canadian made) are based on M113 and in 2005 canada's had authorized the modernization of the fleet and will be based on the LAV-III called "MMEV".
....? what's that gun on top of the turret? calibre etc...? what country is this adats from? Canadian ADATS does not have that gun on top of turret + this seems to be a bradley chassis, werid! who is the manufacturer of this ADATS?
It's being taken out of service in Canada with no replacement in sight.
bert26a 2 months ago
@bert26a It should not have entered service to begin with
slickyboy40 2 months ago
This system was designed and meant to be AA defense for armored units in the Cold War era battle environment of Europe. This was actually the better one. Being mounted on the Bradley chassis vice the M113 it could keep up with the armor. Probably obsolete by now.
merc190d 3 months ago
@merc190d Yes, But it won the Contract by Cheating, I was there during the Shoot-out in the late 80's at Oscura Range Camp between 3 other systems up for that 7 billion dollar contract, Roland System, by Hughes Roland, Liberty System by Chance Vought & Rapier by British Aerospace, I was on the Roland System, The ADATS Contractors helped during the test by spotting for the ADATS crew using Civilian walki-talki's and had a script of what aircraft would be flying against them.
slickyboy40 2 months ago
@merc190d You should have seen What Hughes Roland was going to do with theirs before ADATS won the Contract, Theirs was going to be mounted on an M1 Abrams Chassis with 10 missiles and were the 120 mm gun used to be? would have been a GUA 8 Avenger 30 MM, The Turret was going to be enlarged to encompass the Rolands Cylinder type Missile Storage 1 on each side with the reload hatch, 2 missiles ready to fire and 9 sec. to reload from the Cylinder.
slickyboy40 2 months ago
Tunguska is superior... and the Shilka version with SAMs is also better..
zerocker45 3 months ago in playlist More videos from jaglavaksoldier
12.7mm MG is too weak! No wonder Tunguska or Chinese Type 95 are better.
mike81920 3 months ago
dear Santa,
COOLDAN21 3 months ago
'
is this ADATS can destroy ussr russia tank
bestamerica 3 months ago
@bestamerica old tank yes
DisgorgeKILLusa3 3 months ago
DisgorgeKILLusa3,
'
i mean all ussr russia tanks from old to new
bestamerica 3 months ago
@bestamerica no you wrong, only T-54/55, T-62
DisgorgeKILLusa3 3 months ago
DisgorgeKILLusa3,
'
yes all ussr russia tanks old to new,,,
dont use a word - YOU - on me,,,
ADATS can hit and destroy all ussr russia tanks from T-00 to T-95
bestamerica 3 months ago
@bestamerica No you wrong again. Adats cant destroy T-72/T-80 and T-90. M-1 is old and outdated tank.
T-95 does not exist, name of this tank is object 195 study a facts lol.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 3 months ago
DisgorgeKILLusa3,
'
dont use a word - YOU - on me again,,,
yes hope someday missile / rocket can destroy all ussr russia tanks,,,
just wait
bestamerica 3 months ago
@bestamerica Dont write shit.
Such missiles do not exist, even though the missile is quite capable of destroying Abrams that burned in Iraq from the old Bulgarian RPG-7 sample of 1963. Even no need to wait for it already happened. What YOU hope has nothing not interested. Buy a brain. All modern tanks perfectly protected against cumulative ammunition except M-1 of course hahahaha.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DisgorgeKILLusa3,
'
okay thank explain,,,
remind this dont use a word - YOU - on me again,,,
again dont use a bad word
bestamerica 3 months ago
@bestamerica lol pal stop trolling please ok
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3 Sorry, but you are incorrect, Though I dislike the ADATS System, I was there in Oscura Range Base Camp in New Mexico / White Sands Missile range, during the late 1980's.
The ADATS can Defeat with it's Missile all Current Warsaw pact Armor, I have seen this tested myself against Armor that was as Thick as the T-72/80
I dislike the System because It's crew cheated on the Evaluation test, and it was covered up for political considerations.
slickyboy40 2 months ago
@slickyboy40 No I'm right. The T-80 uses a honeycomb-type ceramic armor NERA of the third generation in principle, it can not be broken by cumulative warhead with a slight cumulative effect and penetrating as ADATS, this is air defense system and it can deal only with very obsolete tanks with a homogeneous armor. T-80UM3 can easily withstand even a much more powerful ATGM like Hellfire 2 or LOSAT.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3 You're aware what does 'can withstand' mean? Appart from areas protected by reactive armor there are many that are not. Even if team inside survives a hit, the tank will require serious repairs to get combat-worthy again, and if it's hit in roughly same spot it's done.
fresherty 2 months ago
@fresherty Oh my god man please learn a facts ok. You do not even understand what you mean, cumulative ammunition against NERA (not reactive armor) of the third generation are totally and completely ineffective. Since the tank will be not damage and no one will die, even if many hits, all "repairs" will consist in a fast replacement of a module with recovery vehicles on the battlefield.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
SHORAD OLD SCHOOL HOOAH
jennroxursox08 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excellent video. See my channel electric motor new design.It is very original model of electric motor (it has no accelerating coil, special phase-shifting devices and condensers).
Ali2011mb 6 months ago
This is the super tank of the survivor army from the KKND Krossfire 2 game.
sjvietboy408 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I LOVE the music in this video!!! does anyone know what the name of the track is????
lmos26 7 months ago
Comment removed
lmos26 7 months ago
this is just a great battlestation... can engage almost everything
enomis9393 8 months ago
Looks like a 25 mm bushmaster not a 50 cal.
NovaScotiaNewfie 8 months ago
Any info on the cost of this?
nindoda 8 months ago
@BackBlocks09 NO you don't keep the laser on the target , you keep the cross-airs on the target tho. its like the TOW missile launcher but instead of a wire controlling the missile the movement commands are sent by diffused laser light, its like the talk on a fiber optic cable but with out the cable. If you have radar then the computer can track and direct the missile with out you holding a cross-airs on it.
astrialkil 8 months ago
Now if Stephen harper the only priminster to care about are military since the 80ds the troop levels will rise and we will get are equipment brand new and high tech not my hope is that the CCV project will go threw and the funding will raise to 30 billion over the next 20 years 27 28 are military will get 30 billion a year god bless Stephen Harper
TheCFarmy 10 months ago
@wasteofspace1234 well dumb ass u don't know much about the military do you did you know the Canadian forces is funded 21 billion dollars a year and how much new gear we get every year the ADATS were going to be replaced but apart of the project was to also replace are tanks with LAV MGS nested we canceled it and bout new and more tanks
TheCFarmy 10 months ago
I was a test crewman of a competitor to this in the acquisition tests. Interesting times. The whole short-range air defense concept has been a bit rough, with small heat-seekers apparently being the most successful. Guns have to be close to pointless (as fun as they were to shoot--Vulcans were hell on styrofoam targets!). Amazing that the Canadians kept at it for 20 years...
BalBurgh 11 months ago
@BalBurgh We keep old and useless weapons because the government ties our hands. Canadian governments never give a damn about the Forces, so the forces can never upgrade its technology until decades after they want a change to be made. The money simply isn't made available to them, and we have our politicians to thank. It's an embarassing truth.
wasteofspace1234 10 months ago
@wasteofspace1234 thats embarrasing that your country doesn't gives it's army steroids, since when have it been good to have an army that is designed to destroy... get the fuck outta here.
GrimmjowProduction 10 months ago
would of been kool to see it shoot one off
kessmypersainass 11 months ago
Pantsir-S Pantsyr S1 this is much better
kerier1911 11 months ago
hahahaha.USA copys russian anti missile system. TUNGUSKA-M1 it is older butlooks almost the same:)
kerier1911 11 months ago
Is that a 25mm gun I see? It's not the .50 the narrator was talking about.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
lol its just soviet gun in usa vhicle.
berkut2006 1 year ago
@berkut2006
the .50 cal isn't soviet, dumbass
USN1985dos 1 year ago
@USN1985dos
stupid i dont say cal..... i just say about the appearance of this vehicle..
berkut2006 1 year ago
@USN1985dos soviets do have 12.7mm (which is almost similar to 50 cal) ...but im not sure they are still using it. Need to look it up.
looxgood 1 year ago
@looxgood There is no soviet union anymore. Just russia. The same russia Nato is encircling at the moment.
TheNonConformative 10 months ago
@TheNonConformative So India,Iran,The Ukraine & Pakistan have all joined NATO now? Don't be silly. America & NATO may have all that advanced tech,but Russian weapons have proven their reliability in combat,and attacking Russia would mean a pointless nuclear war,and the death of all life on this planet,making it uninhabitable. I hate it when you retards want to start war with a country that has nukes.
25Milimeter 10 months ago
@25Milimeter I think you misunderstood my position completely. 1) I made it clear that the soviet union (and accordingly regarding russia as am enemy) no longer exists. 2) I am more than opposed to the NATO. At least since the kosovo "war" that alliance is a criminal henchman for USraeli interests.
Kind regards!
TheNonConformative 10 months ago
@TheNonConformative I apologize.
25Milimeter 10 months ago
@25Milimeter
Each war is lose for both sides. If you lose just one person its a lose. And to get blood on his own hands is a lose too. War is something newage selection of mordern beeing.
Talshet 8 months ago
They list the functions like they are listing special features of a new car. I think we forget that this thing is made to kill people like you and me. :|
b1346 1 year ago
Canada bought it and tried to make it work, infact they are conducting the last live fire camp as we speak.
Google 4th Air Defence Regiment and hit the 128 Bty tad.
JavelinS15 1 year ago
@JavelinS15 So what was wrong with it? The swedes have a laser riding AA missile so it shouldn't have been hard to get it to work.
astrialkil 9 months ago
It,s a peice of junk, it never worked as advertised and is now being retired after 20 years of inglorious service in the maintenance bay.
JavelinS15 1 year ago
@JavelinS15 This was cancelled in the late 80's. Never happened, never had a chance to be fielded!
sakoshooter48 1 year ago
@sakoshooter48 wron i rode 1 at a canadian forces open house type thing 3 years ago except the model i was on didn't have the machine gun on top of it and had what seemed to be either grenade launchers or smoke screen maker( srry not sure the proper term) but thats kinda standard for Canadian forces because they usually do alot of modifications to vehicles and other weapons systems
ironsaber2 1 year ago
Good complex
Ivan1the 1 year ago
Comment removed
SevachkMigoyan 1 year ago
Laser guided SAM is really dumb idea. Unlike Laser guided bombs, if jet outmaneuvers beam even by one inch there will be no reflection from the sky. So tracking lost.
Laser guided bomb for example still recieves reflection from the ground.
kosiak10851 1 year ago
@kosiak10851 um...no it's not a bad idea. it's computer guided.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dogmeat1950 Oh really? I was replying "They should create a shoulder-launcher with ADAT's" comment by the way.
kosiak10851 1 year ago
@kosiak10851 The Reflection from the target was not an issue, the ADATS used a laser beam rider system, meaning that the laser projected a grid towards the target with the missile receptors pointing towards the fire unit (ADATS) which guided it towards the target. It was also equipped with a proximity fuse so you didn’t need a direct hit to destroy the target.
JavelinS15 1 year ago
They should create a shoulder-launcher with ADAT's capability,maybe with a separate target tracker and IFF receiver.It would help immensly.
fixdeluxe1 1 year ago
@fixdeluxe1 I love the idea. I will bomb all NATO countries, while they will be trying to manually focus laser on me.
Laser tracking for SAM is the dumbest idea ever.
kosiak10851 1 year ago
@kosiak10851 Exactly but in unfavorable weather conditions they will be the ONLY ones with guided munitions.
fixdeluxe1 1 year ago
@fixdeluxe1 what I want to say is laser beam is pretty easy to outmaneuver. ADATS system is not fire and forget unlike stinger it focuses laser on target all the time of missile flight. If laser loses target - missile fails. Thats why you cant track targets manually with MANPADS.
kosiak10851 1 year ago
@kosiak10851 Yea I hear you,and I would prefer something like an SA-7 over a british blowpipe.
fixdeluxe1 1 year ago
@fixdeluxe1 Its alrady been done, its called the Javelin anti-aircraft system, HVM or star streak.
JavelinS15 1 year ago
INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX.
how the hell are we gonna win against Al Queda with this high tech weaponry?
lln003 1 year ago
Impressive system.
Mojo1982 1 year ago
How good is this system for incoming missiles (both ATGMs and ASMs)?
It seems to be an excellent choice for a missile-boat, compact and able to defend itself and attack small enemy boats, although it would need a reloading system.
MingGuoLi 1 year ago
They should have already developed an infantry and vehicle standard SAATM(Surface-to-Air-Anti-Tank-Missile) long ago,using different methods of guidance but the same hit-to-kill missile.
It would give commanders a huge logistical breakthrough.
fixdeluxe1 2 years ago
it seems the neutral swiss sale to the entiere world including china and russia and so that turet (shamelly mounted on bradeley)is great for destroy an stealth plane from usa but only with the optical sight and gun because i dont think the lazer designation work on special surface nanomaterial ;
so the gun is an option that is mounted after conception and look ridiculous so high and must be integrated in a side and replace a pack of four missiles (is enought 4 in ass)
omnianti0 2 years ago
@omnianti0 I doubt this thing could track targets through even light clouds. So definitely works against low flying helicopters, no chance against stealth fighters.
TheCrazyFinn 1 year ago
@TheCrazyFinn ok could with lazer designator is a problem and maybe only radar or optical fiber is efective ;
but stealth dont protect against 20mm gun if the lazer cant reflect on (what i doubt):
that turet is the goodness ever maybe a radar sight & 35mm gun will be a major improvement (more than dual gun panshir increasing useless cost and balance and weight )
omnianti0 1 year ago
wow perfect anti tank missile,,,
this anti tank missile is good for destroy all china tanks, ussr russia tanks, north korea tanks
bestamerica 2 years ago
LOL you said the very same thing on the other video..Whats up with that..Cant think of another line
gunnemdown357 2 years ago
Death to all u wrote about!
MrExzyz 2 years ago
boring
marcelo22793 2 years ago
Canada should buy the new generation Crotale's or the HQ-7's. Electrooptical with none of the silly anti-tankness.
SeverEnergia 2 years ago
the system was designed by switzerland & canada and mounted on the m113 . the usa trailed the system on the bradley with the addition of 25mm chain gun (vehical shown) but was not accepted for service .
tipex12 2 years ago
I remember these when they came out. Yes they were on a M113 and didn't have the gun. Fist I have seen this. The missile could also pierce 1000mm of RHA so could be used in the anti tank role.
EnigmaNZ1 3 years ago
looks shit comapred to the greats Gepard + tungusta
muddassarfarooq333 3 years ago
ADATS is the best SHORAD system in the world...Gepard it's a old twin 35mm gun.
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
"Gepard it's a old twin 35mm gun."
Still good enough to rip apart low-fyling aircraft and helicopters. They also gave it the ability to simply plug a couple of canisters with Stingers next to the guns, making it a combined system like the Tunguska.
Magni56 2 years ago
if they work together they would kill everything
mirlin235 2 years ago
teh same anti aircraft missle they use is designed to pearce advanced tank armour alot more punch than 35mm
hbkfitz 2 years ago
It still can´t kill a MBT and the 35mm can kill anything below that. Not to mention that this is achieved at a considerable cost in price, weight, ammo capacity and complexity. Oh, and being more vulnerable to ECM and the like.
Magni56 2 years ago
yes it can kill a mbt 1000mm of armour is alot of armour and it uses a laser grid to track the target ecm dont work against light and it is not much more expensive and you get alot more
hbkfitz 2 years ago
It´s actually about 900mm penetration and any semi-modern MBT has a armor rating against HEAT in the league of 1200mm+
And yes, there are formsof ECM that are specifically designed to to disrupt laser targeting by sending back false signals.
And yeah, it isalot more expensive, a lot more complex (and thus more expensive in the long run) and doesn´t offer anything a cannon-based AA system can´t do.
Magni56 2 years ago
newley developed grid laser system and 900mm of armous is alot how many tanks will the mmev face with 1200+mm of armous and it is alot better than a gun it at least can engage targets at over 4.5km and can take out bunkers and tanks at that and again it has basically the same systems as air defence guns just upgraded and with a little bit extra
hbkfitz 2 years ago
Newly develpoed? Bull-fucking-shit.
Laser-targetting is an old hat and there are plenty ways to render it useless. And even a old T-72 with ERA has more than 900mm equivalent armor.
And 4.5 kmis nothing but a pipedream in nearly any terrain. Adn no,it can´t take out tanks. Save for 50´s leftovers that can get shredded by a 35mm, too.
Magni56 2 years ago
your my friend are retarted i mean new gen further developenment ect.. and btw laser targeting wasnt 50 more like vietnam era it can and will take out tanks not brand new but not 50 era and at the same time you 35mm does less than adats and the range of the missle is 10km you 35mm from a ship ciws aka millenium revolver can do a max of 4.5km and thats surface targets 3km for airbourne
hbkfitz 2 years ago
No, laser targetting won´t be all that useful against any semi-modern tank. Even the Russians had countermeasures from the late 70´s onwards.
So again, too low payload, too expensive, too complicated and not filling an existing nieche. Typical white elephant.
Magni56 2 years ago
Tanks only have 1200mm+ of armor on the frontal glacis and turret. The rest of the armor is far less impressive.
slipfirep40 2 years ago
They also tend to move and use quite a few kinds of countermeasures today.
Magni56 2 years ago
ADATS is mounted on a Bradley chassis :P
Helge129 3 years ago
M113
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
no, the M113 is way shorter, fatter and higher.
Helge129 3 years ago
Yes this one isn't based on the M113 but the real ADATS (Canadian made) are based on M113 and in 2005 canada's had authorized the modernization of the fleet and will be based on the LAV-III called "MMEV".
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
there are extended m113's and canada uses them
hbkfitz 2 years ago
The narrator tells you it's a .50 cal.
NovaScotiaNewfie 3 years ago
....? what's that gun on top of the turret? calibre etc...? what country is this adats from? Canadian ADATS does not have that gun on top of turret + this seems to be a bradley chassis, werid! who is the manufacturer of this ADATS?
CaramelMan24 3 years ago