Why the Eryx? How effective is it?

[Kirkhill]

Highland Laddie

The French (And the Germans, Brits and most other Europeans) use the Milan to cover out to 2000m
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/milan/index.html

HOT is used out to 4000m by both the French and the Germans (The Germans and most other NATO countries use TOW to this range)
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/hot/index.html

Both Milan and HOT/TOW were to be replaced by TRIGAT, a multinational project that was supposed to deliver a Medium Range and a Long Range missile.

The Long Range Fire an Forget missile is still in development 16 years later, (still no missiles fielded) while the Medium Range Laser Rider seems to be dying an unnatural death as partner nations (like the UK and Netherlands) withdrew from the project and adopted the Lockheed Martin Javelin (not to be confused with the Shorts Javelin anti-aircraft missile which is in Canadian service currently)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/lr_trigat/index.html

 

[Highland Laddie]

Highland Laddie

The French (And the Germans, Brits and most other Europeans) use the Milan to cover out to 2000m
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/milan/index.html

HOT is used out to 4000m by both the French and the Germans (The Germans and most other NATO countries use TOW to this range)
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/hot/index.html

Both Milan and HOT/TOW were to be replaced by TRIGAT, a multinational project that was supposed to deliver a Medium Range and a Long Range missile.

The Long Range Fire an Forget missile is still in development 16 years later, (still no missiles fielded) while the Medium Range Laser Rider seems to be dying an unnatural death as partner nations (like the UK and Netherlands) withdrew from the project and adopted the Lockheed Martin Javelin (not to be confused with the Shorts Javelin anti-aircraft missile which is in Canadian service currently)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/lr_trigat/index.html

Thanks for the info. Good PD reading. I knew someone would have this info handy. Cheers.

 

[Marauder]

I read some story in the Nat Post the other day where purportedly 4 AD was using ADATS to make NLOS armour kills at ~8 km with a 3 out of 4 fired to hit ratio. Is ADATS (and the ADs) a viable system for long range AA or was this story misleading?

 

[Kirkhill]

Marauder, you may want to check out this thread.  The test and an earlier report caused a considerable amount of discussion.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18535.0.html

I saw the letter you referred to.  It was by the CO 4AD.  He seemed quit put out by the original article by Barry Cooper.

I will attempt to post the CO's letter on the thread above.

 

[Marauder]

My Google-fu is weaker than your AmrySearchese! Thanks for the re-direct, I shall rap my own knuckles for not looking harder.

BTW, it was great getting to meet you. Hope all is well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Same here Marauder.  It was a pleasure.

Things going just swimmingly here. Cheers.

 

[KevinB]

FYI - units still use the Carl G...
Speaking as a CF ordained Eryx gunner  :  I would much prefer the Carl G (well the LI version especially). 

The Mirable - toss it take the Sophie (same batteries though).

The only usage I can see making use of the Eryx is in urban fighting against a mechanised foe (odds of which?)

I am likely the most guilty of the "too light to fight" Light Infantry force doctrine for the Canadian Forces - but with the descision not to buy a new MBT - one must then adjust our tactics and make the rational decision that we can no longer play the conventional game of Cbt Team attacks with supporting Arms.

When ones looks into the forceable force-conflict future do we really need the Eryx or Gill-Spike/Javelin? 


In summary - I dont think it is effective at all.

Take Care
Kevin

 

[Kirkhill]

Just to clarify Kevin,

Are you recommending that the Infantry (Light, Dismounted, Line (Flat-foot Heavies), Mech, Dragoons....) would be better served with a combination of  the Carl G M3 and the Javelin or Gill-Spike or do you think that there is no need for either the Eryx or the Javelin/Gill-Spike?

Sorry if I'm a bit confused.

Cheers.

 

[KevinB]

Kirkhill,

What I am saying is that I think we need to look at what we want our Army to do - and what we can afford before we pursue some of these projects.

Several of our systems that we need in all theatres of war are rusting out (C9's being a prime example) and that until we refurbish our small arms (and replace them when necessary), that a high dollar item that has a limited usage (and exceedingly unlikely usage given the current world dynamic) should not be the highest priority.


Currently the M3 Carl G and the M72C7 fulfil the Anti-Armour role adequately for the envisioned threats.

 

[Kirkhill]

What I am saying is that I think we need to look at what we want our Army to do - and what we can afford before we pursue some of these projects.

Couldn't agree more Kevin.  One of the hardest parts is trying to figure out what we can afford when others seem to be able to afford a lot more with less cash.

Several of our systems that we need in all theatres of war are rusting out (C9's being a prime example)

  God In Heaven  : ??? :blotto:

 

[pro patria]

Guys,
Being a ERYX inst, I have taught allot of courses on this wpn. Word from the inf school DP3A cell that the ERYX is on its way out. The wpn is unreliable and the cold is worst

 

[STONEY]

ONCE AGAIN AGAIN SOME POINTS TO PONDER.

1. Why the Eryx - because that is what DND wanted , remember this weapon was developed by Canada & France  together.
2. It was developed to use at up to 600m , it is a short range weapon and was designed that way, just as you don't use a 9mil to shoot at someone at 300 metres you use a c7 . If it is not reliable especially in the cold who's fault is that, we developed and tested  it in cold weather. This weapon is exactly what was asked for and its what we got. If we don't like it then we shouldn't have asked for it.
3. Most Army's use a combination of short, medium & long range anti armour weapons and a lot of them have nothing to  do with how effective they are but political expediency . 
4. There is really is, no does everything missle, they all have their place. Does it make sense to use a 4000m range $400,000 missle to knock out a APC 400m away that you could use a $10,000  short range missle on . Although you might not give a shit if there was a MBT breathing down your neck. Would you use a Carl G to hunt duck ?  Maybe if you had a canister round.