US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

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

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
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.

Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any definition.
Don't take this as an outright condemnation of Strix, just its inability to
*replace* the attack helo.


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.

OK, belay the "outright condemnation bit" for a second--if it is so good,
and has been around since 1994, why have only Sweden and Switzerland ordered
it?


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. )

True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin effort
years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired anti-tank
killer capability, having other systems that can do the job (and if it has
to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with assigned laser designator can
do the job with Copperhead).

Brooks


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

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

Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:
Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any definition.
Don't take this as an outright condemnation of Strix, just its inability to
*replace* the attack helo.

Oh, I obviously dident read enough of the thread. Replacing attack
helicopters with mortar rounds is of course an impossible idea even if
they are 100% accurate.

OK, belay the "outright condemnation bit" for a second--if it is so
good, and has been around since 1994, why have only Sweden and
Switzerland ordered it?

The cold war ended and everybody but USA has lowered their military
spending significantly? And the USA dont like to buy foreign high-tech
weapons if it can be avoided. Nobody bought our exelent self propelled
"Bandkanon" howitzer either and it could fire 14 155mm rounds in 45
seconds in 1966. Perhaps its like that howitzer, too expensive and
somewhat before its time? But I do not know what the strix rounds
cost.

True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired
anti-tank killer capability, having other systems that can do the
job (and if it has to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with
assigned laser designator can do the job with Copperhead).

I do not know why the Merlin project was cancelled, it was a
significantly smaller round, perhaps it was not possible to get it
all to fit in such a small package?
Good for you that you have plenty of other systems for killing armour.

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

"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 ... Eg plans of Lance carrying dozens of
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.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote


True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort
years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired anti-tank
killer capability, having other systems that can do the job (and if it has
to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with assigned laser designator can
do the job with Copperhead).

Do you have any idea how many Copperheads are still in inventory? Martin
built about 4-5000 rounds before production was cancelled and I understood
that substantial numbers were expended in Iraq-1.

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:
Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should
be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for
the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any
definition.
Don't take this as an outright condemnation of Strix, just its inability
to
*replace* the attack helo.

Oh, I obviously dident read enough of the thread. Replacing attack
helicopters with mortar rounds is of course an impossible idea even if
they are 100% accurate.

OK, belay the "outright condemnation bit" for a second--if it is so
good, and has been around since 1994, why have only Sweden and
Switzerland ordered it?

The cold war ended and everybody but USA has lowered their military
spending significantly? And the USA dont like to buy foreign high-tech
weapons if it can be avoided. Nobody bought our exelent self propelled
"Bandkanon" howitzer either and it could fire 14 155mm rounds in 45
seconds in 1966. Perhaps its like that howitzer, too expensive and
somewhat before its time? But I do not know what the strix rounds
cost.

I'd say it was because in this case Sweden exhibited that trait that we
ourselves have had to avoid (sometimes not so successfully ourselves, I'd
admit) and bought a nifty weapon designed to help counter the anticipated
hordes of Soviet armored vehicles you might have faced if the balloon had
ever actually gone up--but they did it after the threat was largely
dissipated. Apparently the old "Cold War Mindset" when it came to weapons
procurement after the demise of the Warsaw Pact threat is not a purely
American disease... :-) The US had a number of deep strike artillery
anti-armor weapons in the development pipeline--most were subsequently
cancelled.

Brooks


True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired
anti-tank killer capability, having other systems that can do the
job (and if it has to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with
assigned laser designator can do the job with Copperhead).

I do not know why the Merlin project was cancelled, it was a
significantly smaller round, perhaps it was not possible to get it
all to fit in such a small package?
Good for you that you have plenty of other systems for killing armour.

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

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote


True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort
years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired anti-tank
killer capability, having other systems that can do the job (and if it
has
to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with assigned laser designator
can
do the job with Copperhead).

Do you have any idea how many Copperheads are still in inventory?

Plenty. How many 1000 to 2000 tank armies are you planning on fighting? And
as Tom has pointed out, we apparently have at least some SADARM rounds as
well.

Martin
built about 4-5000 rounds before production was cancelled and I understood
that substantial numbers were expended in Iraq-1.

As I recall it, the number used during ODS was less than 400. Please correct
me if I am wrong--I read the actual number a year or so ago but can't recall
where. I did see where the 1st CAV fired a grand total of 30.

Brooks

"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

"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