^ I agree - I do think it depends on the unique application.
Indeed, just sharing approximate frontal profile size and/or hardpoints does not make two vehicles "alike" in a sufficient way to judge the issue. There are many finer points that cannot be compared across such.
In this manner,
tactical, I do agree with your assessment.
Additionally, I need to amend my posting above - my recall was incorrect, as he used a PL-II (not PL-III), and was only able to elicit PTs at appx. 150 ft. ( originally, I thought that the figure was in meters - again, my apologies
mlieb8 and
All )
That is much better.
charles charlie charles, however, cannot be said to have had an installation issue - as he tested his setup, first-hand, via use of his own LIDAR equipment. For his front side, no matter how he tried, he just could not get two heads to do the trick. And for the rear, even with three heads, he was still nowhere close.
The problem here is that
mlieb8, if he/she is unable to conduct such first-hand testing, will need to err on the side of safety. The conservative bet would then to be to utilize three LPP heads, or, alternatively, go the LI route (or even AL G8, if he can still find such a setup, and utilize the "max jamming" option).
If his area's engagement scenarios do not routinely place him at-risk from below 300 ft., and he does not see use of the Laser Atlanta, then I'd say that a dual-head LPP would more than suffice.