US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

"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

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

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
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.

Yeah, that agrees with what I have found on the web thus far. Thanks for the
update.

Brooks


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

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)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
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.

True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's (say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.




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.

OK, that would make sense (too bad the Army has yet to pick up the turret
mounted, breech loading 120mm mortar offered by one manufacturer (can't
recall which) that is already in service with the Saudi NG on their own
wheeled armored vehicles). I don't see it being of tremendous value to the
heavy units (given that your mortars will generally be a couple klicks or
more rearward of their supported elements, and the max range of the AT
systems available on both the Brad and Abrams, most of what the 120mm could
engage would already be in range of your primary AT systems in short order).

Brooks



--
Tom Schoene

True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's (say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.



Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ron" wrote in message
...
True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when
compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS
when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's
(say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that
results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter
into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you
are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.



Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am scratching
my head...

Brooks



Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and thought
of him.




Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am
scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and
thought
of him.

Gee, thanks Ron, you really know how to stroke a guy's ego... :-) Messeur
Plummer apparently abdicated about the time I started participating in the
group (nad no, damnit, that should *not* infer that I am him, or he is
me...).

I *usually* try to include the full nomenclature for any acronyms that might
be unintelligible to the general, but militarily knowledgable, reader. I
think most folks here know what GMLRS and ATACMS are. That said, I reread
that passage after I wrote it--it was not the acronyms that bothered me so
much as the rather tortuous logic chain I was trying to contstruct. Not one
of my better efforts, I'd agree. Mea culpa.

Brooks





Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message

snip

Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am scratching
my head...

Tust me, you don't want to go there ;-) But if you just have to know, google on
r.a.m., r.a.m.n., or s.m.n., with author "Kurt Plummer".

Guy