hypothetical heavy manpad

I see no military value in having a one-shot SAM in the middle of a forrest, i can see a use of what you are proposing for a freedom/terrorist group to bring down airliners risk-free.
A SAM-site, and especially with this range limit should be positioned next to a high value object, and i would assume any high value object has a road leading to it, so a car can be used.

What about a pickup truck with box launcher in the back? Either under some kind of cover, or flat on the bed, looking like normal cargo, with some kind of quick elevating mechanism underneath.

That could work, but a forest isn’t usually that accessible to a pickup. But then you couldn’t really launch from dense forest anyway.

If it’s at that point though you may as well just stick a CAMM box launcher on the back and the whole idea of this being a MANPADS goes entirely out the window.

Something inconspicuous in a forest won’t be so in an urban area. I’d suggest a quadbike but they’d stick out in compared to a normal car or even a Humvee in an urban area.

I suppose you could mount the missiles on a trailer, rapier style, that can be folded down and covered to look like a regular trailer. Or you could use an inconspicuous box launcher like the new CAMM launchers.

What about a pickup truck with box launcher in the back? Either under some kind of cover, or flat on the bed, looking like normal cargo, with some kind of quick elevating mechanism underneath.

Okay, would then anyone want to venture out and say how much would the envelope increase with a engine increase from 5 kg to 12 kg?

Alternatively – how could one use larger and heavier missiles and make the whole system very unconspicuous in transit (when not prepared to shoot), very much shoot and scoot, very mobile in urban enviroments and forests, etc?

All things considered (you’d probably want larger fins = more drag) more than twice, I’d say. Basically you’re looking for a Lego Mistral here.

Okay, would then anyone want to venture out and say how much would the envelope increase with a engine increase from 5 kg to 12 kg?

Alternatively – how could one use larger and heavier missiles and make the whole system very unconspicuous in transit (when not prepared to shoot), very much shoot and scoot, very mobile in urban enviroments and forests, etc?

Something inconspicuous in a forest won’t be so in an urban area. I’d suggest a quadbike but they’d stick out in compared to a normal car or even a Humvee in an urban area.

I suppose you could mount the missiles on a trailer, rapier style, that can be folded down and covered to look like a regular trailer. Or you could use an inconspicuous box launcher like the new CAMM launchers.

Okay, would then anyone want to venture out and say how much would the envelope increase with a engine increase from 5 kg to 12 kg?

Alternatively – how could one use larger and heavier missiles and make the whole system very unconspicuous in transit (when not prepared to shoot), very much shoot and scoot, very mobile in urban enviroments and forests, etc?

Shoulder launched systems typically weigh 15 to 18 kg ready to fire, whereby the missile itself is usually around 10 kg. Meaning when you want to go larger, you have to switch to ground launch. Now, looking at typical 2.75″ vs typical 5″ rocket weights, it’s 10 kg vs 50 kg. Of these 50 kg, half is motor, half is warhead (plus battery, electronics, seeker if applied to a SAM). 25 kg is too heavy for one guy to carry, and you certainly don’t want to segmentize the motor. Of course one could take a Stinger head and put a slightly fatter motor on it, but I think the gains from a, say, 12kg motor (which could still be carried by one guy over some distance) wouldn’t be worth the hassle.

I’d really be happier if we can stick to a true manpad scenario. Of course one can use various vehicles, but there are certain benefits to my idea. Local mobility (urban areas, forests, mountains) as well as lower chances of detection – be it from the sky or various ground patrols. Of course one could always utilize a simple car to cross larger distances, loaded with missiles and all the equipment.

I think the point is, if it was possible and useful, it’d be done. It hasn’t so it really makes the question hard to answer. The only answer to the question I could give is; wait for missile technology to advance to the point where such a missile could be made more lightly, so that a man could actually carry it.

I’d really be happier if we can stick to a true manpad scenario. Of course one can use various vehicles, but there are certain benefits to my idea. Local mobility (urban areas, forests, mountains) as well as lower chances of detection – be it from the sky or various ground patrols. Of course one could always utilize a simple car to cross larger distances, loaded with missiles and all the equipment.

I don’t know if it already exist or just on drawing board, but there is the idea of loading 6-8 AMRAAM on a Humwee, a more mobile and capable system that also only need 2-3 grunts to man, which will be far happier drivin rather then carrying.

I guess this comes in between

We have manpads like the Stinger, we have slightly heavier manpads like the Mistral, but how would one go about creating a truly heavy manpad – something that would have the range/altitude envelope of a, crotale missile. Or, at least, something that could reach a target 10 km away, 6 km high up.

Also, as a proper manpad, the whole system needs to be compact and light enough so a unit of soldiers could carry it on their backs, assemble it within a minute or two, fire it off a monopod if needed, then scoot off from the firing position within 30 seconds. Yes, early warning is an issue, to make full use of such a large engagement envelope, but lets leave that aside for now.

Now, i ask of you to disregard the ‘why such a requirement?’ “why the need for it?” bit and just go along with it. Engineering wise, design wise – what is the best course of action here?

What strikes me as pretty much a given – is that the missile must be carried in parts and assembled on site. How much of an issue is that, design wise? Can a system be made where, ideally, we have two sealed containers, one with first half of missile, other with back of the missile, and all the soldiers need to do is connect the containers and push a few levers so the mechanism inside assembles the missile in a quick and precise fashion? To make things even more complicated – the whole process should be reversible, in the case the missile doesn’t get fired.

How much would such containers weigh? How much would missile parts weigh?
I’d assume the front part would house the IIR seeker and all the electronics, the fuze and the warhead while the end part would be rocket fuel and steering mechanism. What is a realistic weight limit one person could carry around?

Perhaps a three soldier unit would be enough? Two carrying parts of the missile plus a third guy carrying all the ancilliary equipment?

Alternatively, if weight limits would be too low, is it plausible to pull of a three part missile? Even a four part missile? Perhaps rocket fuel could be made into several parallel cylinders?

Alternatively, if we stick to a two part missile – what is the best range envelope we could achieve, sticking to weight limits?

That would lead to a MANPAD ‘too heavy to carry’. It would become a full-sized SAM system in the end.