Is the American M-SHORAD a complete answer to our "Shell"

The armed forces of the United States and Europe in the near future will receive at their disposal the latest short-range air defense systems M-SHORAD, developed by General Dynamics. A battalion of 32 such vehicles will be deployed in Germany by September this year. The American army will receive 4 more battalions.

The Pentagon says that M-SHORAD is not inferior to our "Shell". But, is it really so?

The American Stryker armored personnel carrier was taken as the basis for the new air defense system, on which a remotely controlled weapon module with a 30-mm automatic cannon, launch guides for two AGM-114L Hellfire 2 Longbow antimissiles and a launcher for four Stinger anti-aircraft ammunition were installed.

According to the developers from General Dynamics, the electronic equipment of the M-SHORAD is not inferior to our "Pantsir-C1". Israeli radars provide detection of a fighter-type target at a distance of 25 km, small drones are visible at a distance of 3,5 km, and artillery shells and mines are visible at a distance of 5-10 km. At the same time, the latest American system will "notice" ground armored vehicles at a distance of at least 17 km.

In addition to the radars, M-SHORAD received a multi-range optical-electronic sighting system with high-resolution optical and infrared channels. It all looks impressive, but ...

The radar, which is equipped with the brainchild of General Dynamics, is capable of tracking targets moving at speeds up to 1485 km / h. While our "Shell" confidently holds objects flying at a speed of 3600 km / h.

Moreover, the FIM-92C / E Block I Stinger missiles are useless against "cold targets" (bombs, small drones, etc.), and the "hot" ones are capable of shooting down at a speed not exceeding 1700 km / h, even if they do not maneuver. At the same time, our 57E6 missiles hit objects flying at speeds up to 4680 km / h and can be "homing" after launch.

In general, the American M-SHORAD system has quite decent characteristics, but it can in no way be called a full-fledged answer to our "Shell".

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 7 May 2021 10: 55
    And, again, allegedly some unnamed anonymous in the Pentagon ...

    although anyone understands that a small universal module with one barrel, anti-tank rifle and light hand-held STingers is clearly not the same as the anti-aircraft armor with its obviously not hand-held missiles and 2 barrels

    And the manufacturer, according to the article, boasts of electronics, and the rest ... apparently the anonymous authors just invented ...
  2. Michael I Offline Michael I
    Michael I (Michael I) 8 May 2021 09: 14
    A system for combating UAVs and helicopters.
  3. Wanderer039 Offline Wanderer039
    Wanderer039 8 May 2021 12: 59
    The carapace system is not bad, but the KamAZ chassis is not entirely successful for it, and here's why. The system itself is positioned as a short-range self-defense system of the S-400 air defense system, but in the event of a military conflict, a system will be required to protect the military columns. The shilka for these purposes is rather outdated, the ZSU-57-2 even more so, the Tunguska is also not the same ... A new system is needed to protect military columns on the chassis of an armored personnel carrier, or better an infantry fighting vehicle. This will increase the stability of the system, due to the armored hull, reduce the height, which means the visibility of the vehicle, increase its cross-country ability (the tracked chassis is better than the wheeled chassis here), improve the armor protection, and several ATGMs need to be added to the armament kit in order for the vehicle to have a chance to fight off a sudden tank attack on their positions, because in war such equipment will operate close to the front line.
  4. Machine_Learning (Aleksandr Ioannov) 9 May 2021 15: 31
    In the "Pantsir" air defense missile system, air defense missiles are more long-range than "stingers".
    But on "Pantsir" there are no "helfire" missiles, which have not yet been surpassed by other analogs of this type of missile.
    And the machine guns on the "Shell" will hit more heap - 4 barrels no matter how.
    In terms of security, the American BM is better, and our KAMAZ's glasses, although armored, are still inferior to ATGM hits.

    The Americans tried to make it more versatile - it hits ground armored targets, and it works on UAVs and on helicopters.