![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "M" *@*.* wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks How many smart AT packages have we fielded for the arty systems? None, other than Copperhead, which has a mixed record. We have tested some, and gotten to the almost-ready-to-field stage, but not actually fielded them. That *may* change with the new GMLRS (guided MLRS)...there was some talk about fielding a smart submunition package for it and for ATACMS. But there are non-US systems, like the Swedish Strix, which is a 120mm mortar fired guided AT round. At least on paper, it seems very formidable with autonomous guidance, target search and prioritization, and a decent-sized top-attack warhead. The Brittish 80mm Merlin was rather similar, although mm-wave radar rather than IR, but I recall that it was cancelled. If Strix were such a great system it would have been picked up by more nations than just Sweden and Switzerland (not sure that having two of the biggest neutrals buy it is much of an endorsement!). Despite claims otherwise, it will be subject to decoying with properly set up IR emitters. And it only has a 7 klick range, which is not going to do much in the interdiction role. If you try to fire it while your forces are in the close fight, there is a significant fratricide risk. I find it surprizing that the US hasn't adopted any smart artillery rounds, except the Copperhead, which really isn't all that smart (non-autonomous). Especially considering the hype that was there already in the 80's about cargo rockets with autonomous AT-munitions that would render massed MBT usage obsolete (again ![]() such munitions. That was "Assault Breaker", father of ATACMS. The plans to develop smart submunitions dispensers for the MLRS family, along with FASCAM versions, died when the threat of a major conflict with the USSR winked out. Perhaps the fact that none was fielded has something to do with the end of the cold war. Yep. But have no fear--the Excalibur GPS guided 155mm projectile is about ready to enter service, IIRC. We also have GMLRS, with guided accuracy out to around 74 km, according to released test results. And remember that ATACMS is guided, out to 300 km. Speculatively, if it was seen that the AH's (etc) that they already had were sufficient to deal with any armour threat out there? Otoh, it's interesting that Sweden would come up with such a round. Do they perhaps see it the other way around, as a substitute for the attack helos they don't have? Given its short range, I doubt it. I don't see us facing any bad guys who can overmatch our counterbattery, and the ever important firefinder radars, capabilities. Unlikely yes, but I could think of rapidly deployed light 'speed-bump' infantry getting into trouble lacking sufficient arty. Mogadishu perhaps illustrates in a small scale that even US troops can find themselves on the ground without sufficient support. One of the lessons (re)learned from Anaconda was *always* have your arty assets available. We are fielding the M777 light 155mm gun now, and HIMARS is also pending fielding. We already have the M119 light 105mm guns. There is no need for *any* significant US troop deployment to go in without arty accompanying it. Brooks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi!
"Kevin Brooks" writes: If Strix were such a great system it would have been picked up by more nations than just Sweden and Switzerland (not sure that having two of the biggest neutrals buy it is much of an endorsement!). Despite claims otherwise, it will be subject to decoying with properly set up IR emitters. And it only has a 7 klick range, which is not going to do much in the interdiction role. If you try to fire it while your forces are in the close fight, there is a significant fratricide risk. I do not know how good Strix is compared with other equivalent systems but that it has too short range for interdiction is as irrelevant that noticing that a vehicle mounted TOW has to short range for interdiction. It seems obvious that the Strix at least will fit everywhere you have mortar fire support. It enables the grunts calling for mortar fire support to call for tank kills instead of mortar rounds that merely scratches armour paint. The extra training needed ought to be trivial, no new communications systems needed and no new logistics needed. The fratricide risk ought to be of the same kind as for ordinary mortar fire, dont call down fire on your friends. It seems reasonable that it is a weapon that is good for supporting infantry defending against armour, supporting wehicles finding armour at a reasonable distance and that it is bad to call on during short range vehicle to vehicle combat. (It would of course be very nifty with a IFF system that can handle that but such a system could easily be more expensive then the weapon proper. ) The IR detector and decoy arms race has probably no true winners, a system used for decades must surely be upgraded several times? I have absolutelly no idea if strix needs such an upgrade but it ought to be easier to upgrade the detector or CPU or software of a functioning system then starting from scratch. Best regards, -- Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min politiska sida. Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "M" *@*.* wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks How many smart AT packages have we fielded for the arty systems? None, other than Copperhead, which has a mixed record. We have tested some, and gotten to the almost-ready-to-field stage, but not actually fielded them. That *may* change with the new GMLRS (guided MLRS)...there was some talk about fielding a smart submunition package for it and for ATACMS. But there are non-US systems, like the Swedish Strix, which is a 120mm mortar fired guided AT round. At least on paper, it seems very formidable with autonomous guidance, target search and prioritization, and a decent-sized top-attack warhead. The Brittish 80mm Merlin was rather similar, although mm-wave radar rather than IR, but I recall that it was cancelled. I find it surprizing that the US hasn't adopted any smart artillery rounds, except the Copperhead, which really isn't all that smart (non-autonomous). Especially considering the hype that was there already in the 80's about cargo rockets with autonomous AT-munitions that would render massed MBT usage obsolete (again ![]() such munitions. Perhaps the fact that none was fielded has something to do with the end of the cold war. Speculatively, if it was seen that the AH's (etc) that they already had were sufficient to deal with any armour threat out there? Otoh, it's interesting that Sweden would come up with such a round. Do they perhaps see it the other way around, as a substitute for the attack helos they don't have? From all reports the SADARM rounds performed_very_well in the Iraq-2 war. Unfortunately, almost all of them have been expended and evidently there are no plans to reopen production. The Army is soliciting non-development proposals for rounds to restock. There's a fair amount of activity in course-correcting artillery rounds. The cheapest is so-called "1D", range-only correction. A smart fuze deploys an airbrake after so many revolutions of the round. For some of them, the number of revolutions is uplinked to the round after it leaves the muzzle, based on muzzle velocity measurements. The 1-D fuzes reduce the range part of the error ellipse which is the largest part of total error. There are also "1.5D" and "2D" correcting shells in development that can correct cross-range errors as well. All of these are "non-smart" in that there is no terminal target sensing but like GMLRS, the decrease in CEP will increase lethality against hard targets. Based on the standard equations for SSKP against hard targets using blast overpressure as the kill mechanism, lethality goes up as CEP^2. I'm not sure how applicable that model is since blast normally won't kill armor but it's an indicator. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul F Austin" wrote in message ... snip There's a fair amount of activity in course-correcting artillery rounds. The cheapest is so-called "1D", range-only correction. A smart fuze deploys an airbrake after so many revolutions of the round. For some of them, the number of revolutions is uplinked to the round after it leaves the muzzle, based on muzzle velocity measurements. The 1-D fuzes reduce the range part of the error ellipse which is the largest part of total error. There are also "1.5D" and "2D" correcting shells in development that can correct cross-range errors as well. All of these are "non-smart" in that there is no terminal target sensing but like GMLRS, the decrease in CEP will increase lethality against hard targets. Based on the standard equations for SSKP against hard targets using blast overpressure as the kill mechanism, lethality goes up as CEP^2. I'm not sure how applicable that model is since blast normally won't kill armor but it's an indicator. They are worthless against armor unless you acheive a direct hit; even a direct strike by a DPICM round against a MBT is unlikely to give you a kill. You have to have either a terminally guided round such as Copperhead or a terminally guided submunition like SADARM to kill tanks. Even Excalibur, except in its SADARM version, which is now moot, is not a tank killer with its reported 10 meter CEP (against a stationary MBT, that would require what, a minimum of maybe eight to twelve rounds to give you a reasonable assurance of hitting it?). Then there is the sensor-to-shooter time lag to overcome against a moving target, which necessitates the use of a terminally guided munition. Brooks |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The matter of using MLRS for SEAD for AH's brings up
the question of whether it's sufficient for saturating the defences. While anti-personnel bomblets, like those used in MLRS, cluster bombs and such, typically are very effective, there are situations where this isn't the case. Soft terrain, like snow covered ground, or boggy ground, greatly reduces the effect of any impact fuzed arty, and small muntions in particular. Firstly, the submunitions may fail to detonate, as the decelearition when hitting the soft terrain may be insufficient to trigger them. Secondly, the effect of those that do detonate, is greatly reduced by the snow or bog absorbing the blast and sharpnel. And finally, there'll be no bouncing, which otherwise could give bomblets a kind of low-level airburst capability. Airburst by proximity fuzing is the obvious solution, but I think it'd be prohibitavely expensive with bomblets. In forested terrain, 'trigger-hair' impact fuzing may give canopy-level airbursts, but I guess that wouldn't be practical with bomblets either. Are there bomblets (anti-personnel submunitions) that actually work well in soft terrain? And if so, how do they accomplish it? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"M" *@*.* wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks I always thought the emphasis on radar stealth was off the mark. Consider missions like the one at the start of Desert Storm, where (iirc) Apaches sneaked in low at night and destroyed Iraqi early warning radars. Obviously, radar stealth seems useful for such missions. Actually, from what little I understand, that scenario is one where LO tech would be of the least usefulness. Early warning radars work on the longer end of the wavelength, and LO is least effective against EW systems; ISTR reading that stealthy platforms can rather often pop up on such systems. But the LO is better oriented towards the shorter wavelength acquisition and tracking systems. If I have that all wrong, sombody else can feel free to correct that view. So, a few stupid(?) questions: Am I wrong about radar stealth being quite useful in addition to terrain masking? Is using helos for such missions outdated? Are such deep missions a marginal issue nowadays, or was it so already back then? Or is it that the US is focusing its capability on tackling third rate opponents with minimal own-losses, rendering the issue of radar-based airdefences largely irrelevant? I don't think LO in the radar spectrum is nearly as important for a helo that is able to use terrain masking as would be reducing the IR and sound signatures. As to going deep, the aviators were quite enamored with that philosophy ever since the Apache arrived on the scene; when we played mixed force simulations, where our division had both Cobras and Apaches in hand, we invariably dedicated the Apaches to going deep (where they often took heavier losses) while we retained the Cobras for over-the-shoulder shooting and as our last-ditch AT reserve. The experience during OIF with the 11th AVN BDE deep attack does point out the dangers inherent in trying to use rotary assets in that role, but beware drawing to great a conclusion, as that mission may have had some planning problems, and it was executed knowingly at greater risk without SEAD support. without the benefit of the normal SEAD support from your own arty assets is extremely risky." More naive questions: Is artillery SEAD really seen as a requirement for attack helo missions within the envelope of enemy short-range airdefences? In my expereince at the DIV level, and watching the corps planning cycle up-close, yes it usually is included in the deep strike plan. If so, what about operating out of arty range? Unlikely--MLRS is now reaching out to a bit over 70 klicks, and when firing ATACMS it can go as deep as some 300 klicks. During exercises V Corps usually kept a significant part of the ATACMS supply under its thumb for use in both SEAD and against OPFOR deep attack (i.e., rocket) systems. Or without having arty on theatre in the first place (eg much of Afghanistan, esp early on)? Which is why we are now fielding HIMARS, the HEMTT truck based "light MLRS", with a six pack in the rack versus the two six packs available in the tracked version. You can also do the JAAT routine, where the attack helos work with fixed wing CAS. And, finally, if artillery is that effective for SEAD, wouldn't it also be effective against the targets of the attack helos? Nope. You are using the arty deep in the SEAD role against area targets. The attack helos are going there because they can pick out and kill the specific systems you are going after. If they are MBT's, then the current crop of arty systems (other than Copperhead, which needs a designator and rather good battlefield conditions) can't reliably kill them. Couldn't smart AT-MP submunitions, or whatever, then do all the job of the AH's, and more safely? How many smart AT packages have we fielded for the arty systems? None, other than Copperhead, which has a mixed record. We have tested some, and gotten to the almost-ready-to-field stage, but not actually fielded them. Not true. The Army fielded and used the SADARM artillery-fired AT submunitions in Iraq last year. The 3ID(M) After Action report says they fired over 120 rounds with 48 targets killed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-aar-jul03.pdf (You'll have to search in the report) That *may* change with the new GMLRS (guided MLRS)...there was some talk about fielding a smart submunition package for it and for ATACMS. I think GMLRS is headed toward a unitary round more than smart subs. ATACSM BAT may still show up, though. The Army has also just issued a contract (now under protest) for manufacture of a 120mm Precision-Guided Mortar Projectile, and is soliciting for an off-the-shelf round to complement the depleted SADARM stocks. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net... Kevin Brooks wrote: snip How many smart AT packages have we fielded for the arty systems? None, other than Copperhead, which has a mixed record. We have tested some, and gotten to the almost-ready-to-field stage, but not actually fielded them. Not true. The Army fielded and used the SADARM artillery-fired AT submunitions in Iraq last year. The 3ID(M) After Action report says they fired over 120 rounds with 48 targets killed. Thanks; I had thought that program was axed a couple of years back. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-aar-jul03.pdf (You'll have to search in the report) That *may* change with the new GMLRS (guided MLRS)...there was some talk about fielding a smart submunition package for it and for ATACMS. I think GMLRS is headed toward a unitary round more than smart subs. ATACSM BAT may still show up, though. I believe you are correct, but I am not sure that the use of a a smart submunition warhead is dead yet. The interest in being able to engage transient targets and reduce the sensor-to-shooter cycle time would seem to point to a place for such a system. The Army has also just issued a contract (now under protest) for manufacture of a 120mm Precision-Guided Mortar Projectile, and is soliciting for an off-the-shelf round to complement the depleted SADARM stocks. The 120mm projectile is not going to be of much use in the deep attack--not enough leg on it. In the close battle, the danger close range would have to be a concern; lobbing autonomous IR or MMWR guided munitions over the FLOT whre your own Brads and Abrams are operating could be problematic. Is the new system going to use autonomous targeting, or laser designation? Brooks -- Tom Schoene |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:10:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message hlink.net... Kevin Brooks wrote: snip How many smart AT packages have we fielded for the arty systems? None, other than Copperhead, which has a mixed record. We have tested some, and gotten to the almost-ready-to-field stage, but not actually fielded them. Not true. The Army fielded and used the SADARM artillery-fired AT submunitions in Iraq last year. The 3ID(M) After Action report says they fired over 120 rounds with 48 targets killed. Thanks; I had thought that program was axed a couple of years back. It was, but there was still a quantity of LRIP rounds in stock, so they were sent out to see how they fared. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote I think GMLRS is headed toward a unitary round more than smart subs. ATACSM BAT may still show up, though. I believe you are correct, but I am not sure that the use of a a smart submunition warhead is dead yet. The interest in being able to engage transient targets and reduce the sensor-to-shooter cycle time would seem to point to a place for such a system. OH, I agree that there will be such weapons in inventory,. But I'm not sure there is funding to give every system this option. It seems to me that the planned off-the-shelf 155mm smart submunition round, a possible Excaliber extended-range smart submunition round, and ATACMS-BAT will probably be sufficiently complementary that they don't also need an MLRS smart submunition round. The Army has also just issued a contract (now under protest) for manufacture of a 120mm Precision-Guided Mortar Projectile, and is soliciting for an off-the-shelf round to complement the depleted SADARM stocks. The 120mm projectile is not going to be of much use in the deep attack--not enough leg on it. In the close battle, the danger close range would have to be a concern; lobbing autonomous IR or MMWR guided munitions over the FLOT whre your own Brads and Abrams are operating could be problematic. Is the new system going to use autonomous targeting, or laser designation? Laser, undoubtedly for the reason you suggest. Even live gunners have a hard enough time telling an LAV and a BTR (for example). I think the main purpose here is to give the Striker battalions a bit more antitank and point hard-target firepower within their own zone of influence. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Army ends 20-year helicopter program | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 12 | February 27th 04 07:48 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |
About French cowards. | Michael Smith | Military Aviation | 45 | October 22nd 03 03:15 PM |
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French | The Black Monk | Military Aviation | 62 | October 16th 03 08:05 AM |