Is there any source of VSHORADs getting a datalink? I can't even understand how the heck can someone even come with this idea of a MANPADs having a datalink.
Datalinks are almost all of the time used when the target is out of missile's own seeker's range or a slavo is fired where you need to redirect or self-destroy missile. AIM-120s use datalink so that they can be fired blind, Spikes use datalink so that they can be fired LOAL, IronDome uses datalink so that second missile can be rapidly diverted towards nearest threat if the first fails.
VSHORADs is fired after a target is acquired using Eyeball Mk-I...so no need of LOAL.
One VSHORADs is fired from one launcher...so no salvo.
With Mach 1.5 and a range of 6km it gives you hardly 10-12 seconds from pressing trigger to actual detonation...why and perhaps more importantly HOW is a single soldier going to find a new target, acquire a new target, lock it and redirect the missile towards it...in less than 10 seconds!?
Definitely...infact our own bodies are much hotter than the surrounding air in a shady day.
But is that heat enough to lock on? Remember all heat seekers have algorithms to prevent them from locking on to the Sun (very hot objects) and ground (slightly hotter object).
Artillery aren't but glide bombs are.
Also you consider the cost of an weapon by adding its unit price with the opportunity cost of not destroying it...sure a 500 bucks arty shell is cheaper than a 200k missile...but what if the guns fail to engage it (way smaller target, thick steel shell prevent 30mm HE shells from causing a sympathetic detonation) and it destroyes your AD unit? What about that cost?
This is the sole reason Israelis don't bother what they're engaging before firing a Stunner.
Use of missiles are not only to target maneuverable target...remember a cruise missile is not a fighter pilot who's going to sense a RWR warning and do evasive maneuver while dumping chaff...it will continue its course in quite predictable manner.
The problem with guns is that each target engages the gun. You aim your gun at a target, fire a burst and now you wait for it to get shot...basically engaging your gun for that period. But with missile you can simply fire all of them at once and then start assigning each one to a target all the while engaging the nearest one with your gun.
Uhh... I think you have the wrong idea about why datalink exists.
TBH, I havent heard of interceptor missiles being diverted mid flight, if you have any operational instances do let me know, I would like to look into it too.
Datalink exists, so that launcher, i.e. the platform from which you are shooting the missile, can guide the missile most of the way with its larger, more stable seeker with better computing power. After lock is broken by the launch platform, the missile starts using its own guidance, by which time it should be close enough for a kill.
As for the cost, the analogy is flawed. The Israelis are defending static positions, against crude attacks that rebels do perhaps once in a few months. The resources Israelis have are immeasurable compared to those with the rebels. They can afford to purchase and resupply it. Most people cant. Even the US defaulted to Phalanx CWIS for intercepting artillery, mortars, rockets, threats of a predictable trajectory.
And also, we dont use HE for anti air CWIS systems. Usually its SAPHEI, to cut through the body then explode and light stuff up.
Im really not sure why you think anyone would ever intercept a artillery shell with a missile. Again, if you have an example of
mobile missile systems being
deployed in a
near peer conflict for artillery, I would like to read up on them. Never seen it, just not feasible.
As for your final observations, you are imagining too intense of a conflict. An air defense system, alone, will very rarely (almost never) have to face off with dozens of simultaneous targets. For things that are important enough to be struck with a barrage of incoming missiles, it will also be important enough to be defended by multiple systems.
Be a bit realistic. Most common target for guns will be helis and drones that came too close. Most common taargets for missile will be Helis and CAS aircraft that stayed far off. CRAM functionality isnt needed, not unless you want to defend FOBs - And in that case, you can put a bunch of systems together. I just mentioned CRAM as a possible capability that I would like to see, but it it absolutely not necessary for supporting armoured troop elements.
PS: I wrote this following the standard way these are used, but to entertain your efforts, let us assume that we start using missiles for artillery shells.
Let us assume artillery shells fired per day, in a combat area, be limited to 100. (very conservative). Per the policy of using missiles to intercept artillery, it will cost you 40 million dollars per day in that small area alone (assuming Stingers being fired, not larger and bigger missiles like you suggested). Thats more than what 3-4 pantsir systems cost , being spent per day in one area
Per the usual policy of
1)If you can run away, run away - You spend 20 cents for fuel
2)If you cant run away, use guns - You spend ~2000-5000$
And running is a legit option, arty takes quite some time from firing to hit.
