A new requirement for an Anti Artillery gun Missile

[Zoo Tycoon]

Artillery has been called the “god of war”, and yet beyond fire location radars, there seems to have been no dedicated weapons systems to neutralise it. Self propelled artillery is nothing new and shoot and scoot with towed guns can become very demanding to get a timely response in the kill chain.

So I see the need for a new class of battlefield weapon the precision guided artillery killer.

Maybe something like this;-
An MLRS type rocket, lofts a kill payload over the active area. Once at altitude, say 45k ft the small low radar signature kill payload separates and deploys a parachute, say with a descent rate of 10ft/sec it gives about 20-25 min of hang time. The kill payload has an IR area detector looking for the unique thermal signature of artillery fire. Once detection and it’s broad location is fixed, the parachute detaches and the terminal phase begins. At a point the IR detector module is ejected from the kill payload, it’s work is done, and this reveals a short range MW precision seeker which provides a <2m hit on anything metallic. A Javelin style warhead finishes the engagement maybe assisted by an additional fragment loading to kill gun crew and burn surrounding ammunition.

This type of system could have a capability against mobile targets so making shoot and scoot tricky/costly. Also it would hit anything that produces a departure point thermal signature;- Artillery, MLRS, SAMS, even ATGM’s.

Any thoughts?

 

[TomS]

This seems overly specified. Loitering drones can detect artillery pieces and then generic antiarmor munitions can kill them.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

This seems overly specified. Loitering drones can detect artillery pieces and then generic antiarmor munitions can kill them.

True but if you look at Oryx confirmation loses it’s not working at all effectively, Artillery systems losses are only about 10% of other systems.

 

[red admiral]

Is the IR signature of artillery fire that unique? I think the find part of the problem will be really hard; you don't have many pixels to cover a wide area and the firing signature is over really quickly. I think simply detecting will be really hard unless its in a very small area, and false alarms will be really problematic. e.g. was that artillery firing one round, or was it the glint off a bus window?

I think i'd more go for dedicated use of assets for counter battery if that is high enough priority: e.g. dedicated radar to detect, track and compute firing positions of ballistic targets; then own artillery standing by to fire in order to minimise timelines

 

[dan_inbox]

dedicated radar to detect, track and compute firing positions of ballistic targets;

Which is a lot less practical nowadays, with trajectory-correcting ammo.

 

[eshelon]

Artillery systems losses are only about 10% of other systems.

This is reality of wars, nothing unusual. Always vehicles with longer range weapons have less losses than vehicles with shorter range weapons (modern ifv, tanks - that's why buying very multi-million vehicles with line-of sight weapons is huge mistake). Longer range gives better survivability than heavy armor, which is expensive and reduces mobility.

 

[Firefinder]

dedicated radar to detect, track and compute firing positions of ballistic targets;

Which is a lot less practical nowadays, with trajectory-correcting ammo.

10 year Firefinder radar operators here.

Just going to say this.

Not really in my experience, even when I first started.

Also there fun stuff coming out with acoustic sensors, back in WW2 a good team could zero in on the gun location down to 50 meters accuracy from over 80 miles away.

Modern ones like what the British are messing with can apperantly havle and double those figures respectively. Thats independent of what the shell does.

The biggest issue with counter Arty stuff is basically the old Anti Ballastic Missile argument.

To actually degrade it you need to go all in with billions of dollars of gear and keep it up.

Verse the artillery, which even with all the bells whistles and gold plating, still comes out so much better on the per-cost ratio its not even funny.

With several of the bells being systems to counter the counters.

It basically a losing fight without the hope of breaking even like ABM has.

 

[NMaude]

IIRC didn't the Sea Wolf short-range SAM score direct hits against 4.7" shells back in the 1970s?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

I was thinking about destroying the gun (tube) on the ground rather than the shell in the air.

 

[timmymagic]

Is the IR signature of artillery fire that unique?

It's been used for spotting and counter battery work for 100 years, same with sound ranging.

Think about the possibilities for counter battery work in the very near future...

Counter battery radars, networked drone swarms using optical sensors to triangulate 'flashes' and sound ranging all instantly, long range optics and radar from HAPS cued in, long range SAR from aircraft and space taking 'pictures' from long range after being cued and tracking any attempt at movement....followed by munitions like LPS being fired in to kill the system...

I know it looks like Artillery is the king of the battlefield at the moment, but the near future looks pretty unpleasent for it...no wonder the US is going for range in a big way.

 

[timmymagic]

IIRC didn't the Sea Wolf short-range SAM score direct hits against 4.7" shells back in the 1970s?

Yes they were one of the targets used, direct hits on multiple occasions.

 

[Firefinder]

IIRC didn't the Sea Wolf short-range SAM score direct hits against 4.7" shells back in the 1970s?

Yup and the US Army been using the old 20mm Phalanx CIWS, CRAM Counter Rocket Artillery Mortar, in the desert to smack down incoming for the last 20 years.

Thing is those systems are only good for few shells at once.

Say a battery fires worth? 6 guns firing at once at the same target.

Which is very common.

Will quickly overwhelm the system with tow guns, let allow a battery of PzH2000 going ham.

And a shell, even the Excalibur types let alone the PFK, are far cheaper then then a Seawolf missile. Before you get into the guidance and magazines depth issues. How many missiles can you guide at once? How many can you carry?

Worth it when you only dealing with a few shells, less then 50, day.

Less so when you deal with 50 an hour.

Lasers may be able to do it, or at less degrade it enough to keep mission killing hits or eorse from happening. Apparently the laser strykers the US Army fielding can detonate mortars out of the killzone, so that something.

But Arty is death to inflantry and you cant put a CRAM laser on them.

Oh then you have to deal with the EWAR side of things.

Jamming Shells exists, and the Military has have Chaff shells designs since WW2. Actually think the new smoke shells have a chaff effect as well...

Eyeah this is something the military has thought of.

And found that its a utter PAIN IN THE ASS to do well enough to be worth it.

Cause remember.

A 60mm mortar bomb has a I kill you raduis of 10 meters. Where if it lands by you and you not in HARD COVER like a MRAP? You deal.

A 155mm raduis in 50 meters.

And both are extremely cheap and accurate. So missing even one may pay for itself by render a squad mission incapable.

I was thinking about destroying the gun (tube) on the ground rather than the shell in the air.

Which even with modern gear is hard to do against a similary modern opponent.

Cause even a tow gun can be gone within 5 minutes of firing. A SPG can be rolling in 30 seconds.

So not only do you have a small window of finding the target, you have an even smaller one to attack before the gun tube has bugger off into the next zip code.

Throw in all the countermeasure one can do to minimize the counter attack?

From having an Active Production system to shot down the incomming to Ewar for making it think its somewhere else. Or just a good old camou net to make you disappear. Or just nets to stop the loitering munitions from hitting then detonating like Ukraine finding out.

Arty is hard to kill if it wants to work for it or if you dont want to delete then mine the grid square it was in.

Easiest way to stop Artillery is to go for it stomach.

And destroy the Ammunition dumps and logestic trucks.

For a Gun with no ammo if just a fancy pipe.

And even thats getting hard...

Is the IR signature of artillery fire that unique?

It's been used for spotting and counter battery work for 100 years, same with sound ranging.

Think about the possibilities for counter battery work in the very near future...

Counter battery radars, networked drone swarms using optical sensors to triangulate 'flashes' and sound ranging all instantly, long range optics and radar from HAPS cued in, long range SAR from aircraft and space taking 'pictures' from long range after being cued and tracking any attempt at movement....followed by munitions like LPS being fired in to kill the system...

I know it looks like Artillery is the king of the battlefield at the moment, but the near future looks pretty unpleasent for it...no wonder the US is going for range in a big way.

Of course all that is also relies on the com net being able to communicate all the information effectively.

If the Enemy have a half decent EWAR network try in with AA types and Artillery to hit the nods?

That becames a really big IF.

 

[red admiral]

It's been used for spotting and counter battery work for 100 years, same with sound ranging.

Has IR been used before? I don't really understand this as terrain, curved earth etc will mask flash from surface mounted systems, and I'm not aware of any airborne ones.

Sound ranging definitely works, but I would think that the timelines are just too long today as any response will be have a few minutes lag at least by which time the shooter can have easily moved far away enough

Not that it's not a useful part of the system e.g. you've massively cut down the area to use airborne GMTI/spotSAR to track and ID potential targets

 

[TomS]

This seems overly specified. Loitering drones can detect artillery pieces and then generic antiarmor munitions can kill them.

True but if you look at Oryx confirmation loses it’s not working at all effectively, Artillery systems losses are only about 10% of other systems.

Artillery probably only represents 10% (or less) of all AFVs on the battlefield, so this sounds about right?

Your specific design doesn't seem quite right. From 45,000 feet, a small sensor is going to be hard-pressed to do the detection you need. At lower altitudes, you need something powered to have the persistence desired. In effect, you're recapitulating LOCAAS, a loitering weapon that could orbit over an area for 20-30 minutes, using LIDAR to look for targets that matched particular characteristics. And it isn't specific to artillery, because once you have a n imaging sensor, it can shoot at anything you have a decent model of.

Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS)

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Is the IR signature of artillery fire that unique? I think the find part of the problem will be really hard; you don't have many pixels to cover a wide area and the firing signature is over really quickly. I think simply detecting will be really hard unless its in a very small area, and false alarms will be really problematic. e.g. was that artillery firing one round, or was it the glint off a bus window?

I think i'd more go for dedicated use of assets for counter battery if that is high enough priority: e.g. dedicated radar to detect, track and compute firing positions of ballistic targets; then own artillery standing by to fire in order to minimise timelines

A falling dart payload is only going to be limited in its reach, my guess is a 20 km circle diameter obviously decreasing as the altitude reduces. So the scan area is pretty small, so quite manageable and not pixel demanding horizon to horizon.

I saw an at altitude IR view of artillery firing (tried to find it on YouTube but no luck) and you could clearly make out the hot shell as a hot tip on the end of rapidly extending hot line. There were even the secondary confirmation signatures such as the hot gas ejected from the muzzle. I’m sure a rocket projectile would have some very unique features.

The current philosophy of detection, back calculation of location (with errors), gradually take more measurement/recalibrate and finally comms to a suitably positioned engagement system. Getting each individual element in position is at best difficult, there’s so many interacts it’s going to be error prone, it gonna struggle with multiple targets, it sensors are highly susceptible to jamming or spoofing and has zero capability against moving targets. Reducing the kill chain time inherently becomes exponentially more difficult the more you try to compress it.

Other suggestions of swarming drones require complex logistics and communication. Loads of opportunities to interrupt and go wrong.

Simple solutions work.

The weapon system proposed in thread post number one is simple, say you have say a dozen artillery pieces operating in 20km by 30km area, you dispatch a single MLRS (vehicle ) and upon arrival at its launch point it kills maybe ten or more within an hour of arrival. The munition itself has an inherently minimal detection to kill time probably in the region of 20-40sec with an ability to hit a moving target. In essence, if there’s one of these munitions on it parachute above an artillery piece which is fired, it’s dead. If there’s twelve of these hanging above ten artillery pieces ten they’re all off the worry list you’ve ambushed them to boot. It really could be that simple.

This system could also be used in the role of artillery suppression and denial in a way that’s difficult for today’s methods. Say you want to launch an offensive but at risk of a heavy artillery attack from artillery guns, currently 70km away along a main supply route. So the concern that within an hour or so these could being pounding you. With this system you can simply/completely mitigate this risk with a few MLRS vehicles, suitably positioned with these munitions.

Accepting the current 10% loss as, well that’s the best that can be done is not the way I think. It’s more that we haven’t solved the problem yet.

I’m proposing a very different solution for a problem, so a little push back is quite natural and I would like to thank all those contributing as the input is fascinating.

 

[timmymagic]

I saw an at altitude IR view of artillery firing (tried to find it on YouTube but no luck) and you could clearly make out the hot shell as a hot tip on the end of rapidly extending hot line. There were even the secondary confirmation signatures such as the hot gas ejected from the muzzle. I’m sure a rocket projectile would have some very unique features.

There was some footage from Bayraktar's observing fall of shot on Chornobaivka Airport (just outside Kherson) from 60km away using the Wescam EO/IR turret. Impacts and incoming rounds were clearly seen.

 

[red admiral]

You can see the rounds with a good enough sensor and small enough field of view, but an expendable munition is going to have a much lower cost and performance sensor. Then there's field of view; 20km circle diameter from 45kft is a field of view about 100-110deg. You get rather different performance to the <<5deg FoV from an EO/IR turret.

High grade IR sensors and optics are surprisingly expensive. There's going to be a trade off for an expendable system

 

[Voltzz]

In the 90s the German Army had a project for a IR-sensor capable of spotting the reflection of artillery muzzle-flash in the atmosphere. It was called OZA (Optronische Zielortung Artillerie). I dont have much information on it, but it seems to have failed its acceptance trials, and the company that made it went bankrupt.

 

[jsport]

In the 90s the German Army had a project for a IR-sensor capable of spotting the reflection of artillery muzzle-flash in the atmosphere. It was called OZA (Optronische Zielortung Artillerie). I dont have much information on it, but it seems to have failed its acceptance trials, and the company that made it went bankrupt.

Holy cow, thank you Voltzz ..have been looking for this for YEARS. ..saw this is Janes IDR back in the 90s maybe and could never find it again. Janes never depictions.

Now if you could (please) find a reference in a Janes IDR to a "sniper artillery RDT&E program" where US ARDEC threw too much science at improving the accuracy of a M777 155mm or some towed even 105mm gun.. It was aimed at towed guns as FCS had its own accuracy improving AESAs etc. tech program for SPHs. Muchos Gracias in advance

 

[Scott Kenny]

You can see the rounds with a good enough sensor and small enough field of view, but an expendable munition is going to have a much lower cost and performance sensor. Then there's field of view; 20km circle diameter from 45kft is a field of view about 100-110deg. You get rather different performance to the <<5deg FoV from an EO/IR turret.

High grade IR sensors and optics are surprisingly expensive. There's going to be a trade off for an expendable system

So you need two sensors per loitering munition/drone: a staring wide angle to look for IR flashes, and then the EO turret to narrow down the location.

 

[Firefinder]

So you need two sensors per loitering munition/drone: a staring wide angle to look for IR flashes, and then the EO turret to narrow down the location.

Or just have each drone equiped with a mircophone spec to the low freq rumble of Artillery firing and datalinked together with gps.

Set them up in a alternating pattern, and havd them compare the timing and angle the sound came from.

After a bit of triangulated math you be able to Passively located the firing gun, even in multiple batteries, down to 50 meters from up to nearly 50 km within 10 seconds.

The have the standard loitering munition EO/thermal sensor narrow it down to a hit.

Artillery sound ranging.

The original way to do counterfire.

And making one hell of a combat thanks to modern tech allowing all the gear to fit in a tiny space. The newest set up are the size of a claymore mine thanks to having a massive battery to last weeks in a spot.

General in a set of 4 mic stations, each bout 500 meters apart, all datalinked to a tablet size device to do all the math. Allowing a team of two in a truck, or by foot, to cover a massive amount of the battlefield passively.

When I got out there was talk of adding it to the ANTPQ50 and 53 Firefinding radars since they often act in platoons of 6 radars all datalinked together to give them Passive detection mode to cue the radars.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or just have each drone equiped with a mircophone spec to the low freq rumble of Artillery firing and datalinked together with gps.

Set them up in a alternating pattern, and havd them compare the timing and angle the sound came from.

After a bit of triangulated math you be able to Passively located the firing gun, even in multiple batteries, down to 50 meters from up to nearly 50 km within 10 seconds.

The have the standard loitering munition EO/thermal sensor narrow it down to a hit.

Artillery sound ranging.

The original way to do counterfire.

Would be do-able for sure! (and thanks for reminding me that people other than sailors use sonar!)

Though I'd rather have both a staring wide-angle and an acoustic sensor, if it can be done cheap enough. I've seen a computer program that can correct a fish-eye lens effect, so I'd love to stick a decent resolution (minimum 640x480 at 17hz) staring thermal sensor with a fisheye lens on it and use that as the wide-angle thermal.

 

[jsport]

"sniper artillery RDT&E program"

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA221243.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1029824.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA440117.pdf

 

[Scott Kenny]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA221243.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1029824.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA440117.pdf

Oooh, artillery caliber ballistic calculators!

 

[jsport]

Oooh, artillery caliber ballistic calculators!

5. CONCLUSIONS Using the models described in this paper the user and developer can quickly assess the impact of changes in hardware and artillery tactics on cannon delivery accuracy. The models, however, provide only a rough estimate of accuracy. The utility of these models is in their ability to quickly assess the proposed change with respect to its effect on delivery accuracy. This will allow the analyst to focus only on those parameters that are significant in the error budget. The benefit in using these models is in reducing the level of effort ond detailed accuracy studies with more complex models by focusing only on those parameters critical to the error budget. Based on a cursory analysis of the results of this limited study, it appears that a technique similar to that described for a radar adjustment will provide the best compromise in design features from the point of view of accuracy. It provides the potential to quickly adjust any round - dumb or smart - within five milliradians CEP of an aim point using the immediate transfer mode. This potential is not available with predicted fire methods. In addition, using the delayed transfer with a change in gun position should provide accuracy shoot and scoot type of operation. Finally, adjusted fire techniques as a class are less demanding on the number and quality of ballistic sensors, position/orientation systems, and met data, since correction factors can be used to help offset errors from these sources. An in-depth analysis to include considerations of current and proposed operational concepts, cost tradeoffs, command, and control considerations, etc., will be published as a result of the Department of the Army directed Field Artillery Accuracy Improvement Analysis which began in January 1989 and is scheduled for completion by the third quarter FY 90.

..believe the Janes IDR article mentioned a need for a 'at gun',+ local + sat met radar et al projectile monitoring radar, as well as parallel lasers measuring barrel deformation/whip effects +timing... differential GPS...believe the article mentioned lower tolerances in gun assembly, and charge volumes as well. where has all this gone in the end it could be cheaper than PGK even...

sounds like SADARM might have been cancelled because the rds weren't getting close enough to be effective.

 

[Firefinder]

believe the Janes IDR article mentioned a need for a 'at gun',+ local + sat met radar et al projectile monitoring radar, as well as parallel lasers measuring barrel deformation/whip effects +timing... differential GPS...believe the article mentioned lower tolerances in gun assembly, and charge volumes as well. where has all this gone in the end it could be cheaper than PGK even...

Its on the guns at the moment for the most part, dont think the laser measurement is, but dont quote me on that. I was an Artillery RADAR operator, not a gun bunny.

Large part of the reason why modern howitzer went from 100 meter CEP dow to less then 40.


There is only so much you can do at the gun to increase accuracy. And we have damn damn near all we can with current tech. We might get some more consistent burning powder that will drop another meter or off it in the future for example, cause that the big one at the moment.

There is just too many outside variables, ranging from atmospheric layering, to wind sheared and the rotation of the earth at the firings points plus an Metric Ship load of others to get any tighter.

To get the sub 15 and 10 CEP you NEED guidance systems like the PGK to do that.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Is the IR signature of artillery fire that unique?

It's unique enough that SBIRS can detect firing batteries and individual MRLs by propellant signature. This is what the United States was doing in Syria. It's less able to do this in Ukraine due to cloud cover.

I think the find part of the problem will be really hard; you don't have many pixels to cover a wide area and the firing signature is over really quickly. I think simply detecting will be really hard unless its in a very small area, and false alarms will be really problematic. e.g. was that artillery firing one round, or was it the glint off a bus window?

How much potassium do bus windows have in them?

Artillery propellant has a wildly different spectral signature than a infrared window glint:

https://www.afit.edu/BIOS/publications/201112ApplSpec65121363.pdf

A suitable hyperspectral sensor or sensors ranging from UV to SWIR (the latter overlap with NIR for cloud penetration) will be able to detect it with fairly low error rates through clouds. The cannon cocker fears this.

Well, at least until people start making new forms of propellant to get around such super sensors, anyway.

I think i'd more go for dedicated use of assets for counter battery if that is high enough priority: e.g. dedicated radar to detect, track and compute firing positions of ballistic targets; then own artillery standing by to fire in order to minimise timelines

This is how counter-battery works normally yes, you have a reserve of guns allocated to the counter-battery fight, and then semi-mobile WLRs and acoustic-infrared rangefinding complexes moving around periodically. The latter don't need to move as often but usually have shorter ranges.

The problem being that radar emits, which means it tends to get detected, and then destroyed. So WLRs can't operate all the time except in the most permissive environments, and they aren't always powerful enough to detect long range guns, which is partly why the Ukrainian artillery is still existing in the current European war, albeit firing at rates less than their Russian counterparts.

The 1L219 Zoopark-1 is inadequate to detect extremely long range (>30 km) fire by the M777 or CAESAR or HIMARS, but the 1L220 Zoopark-2 can apparently detect Hyacinth-B and Acacia fire, so whether it's a problem with the 1L219 or not is an open question, as they're very similar complexes. The 1B75 Penicillin complex uses infrared-visual multispectral sensors on a elevating mast and remote acoustic sensors (1B76) to detect firing from upwards to 40 kilometers away, and entered service in 2020.

Regardless, when it's working properly the Russian reconnaissance-fire complex can coordinate a pretty tremendous amount of counter-battery onto a target in about 150-180 seconds, with about a third of that being the flight time of the shells (~75 seconds). The keyword is "when", because the WLRs must move around often, and the 1B75 lacks the range to detect long range rockets like HIMARS, and might struggle even with Excalibur-type PGMs. Infrared shot detection in high orbital planes is a mandatory part of the counter-battery battle these days. Guns are just too long ranged to easily trace back without having radars that can be detected on the Moon or acoustic sensors planted deep behind the FLET.

Some sort of cloud penetrating sensor (UV-SWIR hyperspectral camera) that occupies the LEO, and incorporates staring sensors, would make counter-battery a lot faster, assuming it could downlink directly to a AFATDS or similar equipped gun battery, and direct fire immediately. AFATDS almost does this anyway, but it still requires some manner of human intervention, and WLRs aren't instant.

Since SpaceX is able to loft internet birds so easily, it would be fairly trivial to mate something like a MOIRE lens with a Cubesat carrying a SpaceX-style Starlink SATCOM, WFOV hyperspectral sensor, and a pocket computer talking to AFATDS and identifying weapons fire via GPS grids. This would be able to replace a lot of WLRs and acoustic/infrared sensors in use and simplify the counter-battery battle again.

Basically, you'd need every artillery battery and its FDC rolling around with a direct SATCOM to a SBIRS bird. This is what Space Force craves.

Whether it's practical or not is an open question, but the response chain for WLR reporting to an FDC it's detecting shells in flight, and then AFATDS going back to the guns to order a fire mission automatically, and the gun crews laying on target all eats up seconds, and when we're talking about modern counterbattery even shaving 5, 10, or 20 seconds off the typical 2-3 minute window from initial report to splash can mean a lot at longer (>30 km) ranges.

The alternative is large footprint smart weapons like Damocles, which was a sort of SADARM with a paraglider instead of a parachute, and that sort of stuff can only really be delivered by rocket artillery. Which both means it takes longer to deliver to target and has a much higher signature, so the large footprint can only compensate so much.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Its on the guns at the moment for the most part, dont think the laser measurement is, but dont quote me on that. I was an Artillery RADAR operator, not a gun bunny.

Large part of the reason why modern howitzer went from 100 meter CEP dow to less then 40.


There is only so much you can do at the gun to increase accuracy. And we have damn damn near all we can with current tech. We might get some more consistent burning powder that will drop another meter or off it in the future for example, cause that the big one at the moment.

There is just too many outside variables, ranging from atmospheric layering, to wind sheared and the rotation of the earth at the firings points plus an Metric Ship load of others to get any tighter.

To get the sub 15 and 10 CEP you NEED guidance systems like the PGK to do that.

Still surprised that the Arty tubes don't have a muzzle reference sensor like tank guns do...

 

[Foo Fighter]

Why would they need it?

 

[zen]

IIRC didn't the Sea Wolf short-range SAM score direct hits against 4.7" shells back in the 1970s?

4.5" but yes and done with 1970's technology that now could run on your smartphone.

 

[jsport]

Its on the guns at the moment for the most part, dont think the laser measurement is, but dont quote me on that. I was an Artillery RADAR operator, not a gun bunny.

ur saying AESA radar precision is 'at gun' tracking 1st rd plus possible local terrestrial AESA or even Firefinder radar (utilized as met radar input) and available space met radar et al.

There is just too many outside variables, ranging from atmospheric layering, to wind sheared and the rotation of the earth at the firings points plus an Metric Ship load of others to get any tighter.

One would imagine more math and even AI could handle, the question is will and resource.

To get the sub 15 and 10 CEP you NEED guidance systems like the PGK to do that.

Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) and other low cost MEMS, IMU et al could be used even to replace current PGK w/ much cheaper systems to the point every round could be guided IMHO.

 

[Firefinder]

ur saying AESA radar precision is 'at gun' tracking 1st rd plus possible local terrestrial AESA or even Firefinder radar (utilized as met radar input) and available space met radar et al.

Yes, its not that hard. All the issues was in portable computing power, which had massively increased in tge last 5 years verse the last 25.

What needed a desk mounted mainframe to do 20 years back is now do able on your phone.

One would imagine more math and even AI could handle, the question is will and resource

There isn't any more math that can be done. It all down in deal with variables that you cant know till the shell on its way. No amount of math or SCI Level AI wizardry can change that. And without some way to actively correct...

Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) and other low cost MEMS, IMU et al could be used even to replace current PGK w/ much cheaper systems to the point every round could be guided IMHO

My friend. What do you think the PGK uses?

It a multi spectrum system, it uses all that with GPS to help with error and fault correction to work.

Large part of the cost is harden all that to survive the 20,000 gees of it being punted into the next area code. Or being dropped and kicked by a tried private in the middle of the night.

 

[jsport]

we will have to differ on whether the price of a PGK can go down or not..
The DOD needs to "risk" pay for onging open competition. for instance, GPS may not even be needed at all.

Old school GPS developers had a saying "GPS sucks"

 

[Scott Kenny]

we will have to differ on whether the price of a PGK can go down or not..

I mean, the current "you sneaky brilliant bastards" idea is that M1156 PGK that screws into any deep fuse artillery shell, turning a 60yo M107 shell into a 50m CEP semi-smart shell. The only downside is that it can't hold wings big enough to let the shell glide like the M982 Excalibur, so it's not any longer ranged than a standard M107.

And the price for that was $13k in 2013, at the start of production, so it's significantly cheaper now.

The DOD needs to "risk" pay for onging open competition. for instance, GPS may not even be needed at all.

Old school GPS developers had a saying "GPS sucks"

With a sufficiently good INS you don't need GPS except to check for drift. But those INS are expensive. GPS on a chip is cheap.

 

[Firefinder]

With a sufficiently good INS you don't need GPS except to check for drift. But those INS are expensive. GPS on a chip is cheap

You also need a way to get the starting Fix.

Cause it doesn't matter how good you INS is if you tell it you are at X when you are really in in Y.

And the more accurate the better.

And modern GPS is insanely good at that and blows the pants off of the "old school" stuff in all categories.

Throw in the forces at launch...

Cause upwards of 20,000 gee is a fraking lot. Enough to induce all types of errors in any INS...

Well GPS is again basically the only way to get that starting point, and recalibrate data in both a fast and easy to use package.

The next best way be setting up a handful of references stations in a mini Loran deal. And that can take a few hours among other issues, like eating an enemy shell.

GPS is the best there is with the limitations a military has to work with.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You also need a way to get the starting Fix.

Cause it doesn't matter how good you INS is if you tell it you are at X when you are really in in Y.

And the more accurate the better.

And modern GPS is insanely good at that and blows the pants off of the "old school" stuff in all categories.

Throw in the forces at launch...

Cause upwards of 20,000 gee is a fraking lot. Enough to induce all types of errors in any INS...

Well GPS is again basically the only way to get that starting point, and recalibrate data in both a fast and easy to use package.

The next best way be setting up a handful of references stations in a mini Loran deal. And that can take a few hours among other issues, like eating an enemy shell.

GPS is the best there is with the limitations a military has to work with.

Star sighting is pretty good, it's what the missiles used before GPS. And a good star sighting system can work day or night.

 

[Firefinder]

Star sighting is pretty good, it's what the missiles used before GPS. And a good star sighting system can work day or night.

And a good Star sighter with the needed accuracy and robustness is bout twice the size of the PGK.

So while thats be fine for use on the fuse setter.

Not so much for the shell inflight updating.

Thats largely due to the optics needed to see though all the atmospheric junk, like clouds. Cause unlike most of the missiles that used star tracking to refind their course, shells fly a good bit lower. A max ord of 19,000 feet there bouts is consider high. The star tracker missiles on the other hand had a max ord of north of 50,000 feet, well bove the cloud line limit of bout 35,000 feet.

And those types of optics are not happy bout the 20k G force put on a shell on firing.

So Far admittedly.

That likely will change in the next 10 to 50 years but for now gps is the way to go for a PGK size device.

Now something like the Excalibur or the Navy AGS LRAP. Those might be able to use current star trackers thanks their size and in the LRAP cause, max ord of bout 30k. But that comes with all the fun a shell of that type have. Like not being able to carry fifty of the things in a can the size of a Fifty Cal ammo can.

Which is the PGK bug strength, the ability to drop a small can off and turn a HMPTT truck load of dumb shells into a load of decent PGMs.

Basically is the JDAM kit of the Artillery work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And a good Star sighter with the needed accuracy and robustness is bout twice the size of the PGK.

So while thats be fine for use on the fuse setter.

Not so much for the shell inflight updating.

Thats largely due to the optics needed to see though all the atmospheric junk, like clouds. Cause unlike most of the missiles that used star tracking to refind their course, shells fly a good bit lower. A max ord of 19,000 feet there bouts is consider high. The star tracker missiles on the other hand had a max ord of north of 50,000 feet, well bove the cloud line limit of bout 35,000 feet.

And those types of optics are not happy bout the 20k G force put on a shell on firing.

So Far admittedly.

That likely will change in the next 10 to 50 years but for now gps is the way to go for a PGK size device.

Now something like the Excalibur or the Navy AGS LRAP. Those might be able to use current star trackers thanks their size and in the LRAP cause, max ord of bout 30k. But that comes with all the fun a shell of that type have. Like not being able to carry fifty of the things in a can the size of a Fifty Cal ammo can.

Subs used star sighters out of the periscopes back in the day (I don't remember if the Ohios had them or if we ran off GPS+SINS), so definitely can be used at the individual gun level. Automatic star sighters at that.

And yes, the good range-increasing guided shells are a complete 100+lb body, not a 5lb or less soda bottle oversized arty nose fuse.

Which is the PGK bug strength, the ability to drop a small can off and turn a HMPTT truck load of dumb shells into a load of decent PGMs.


Basically is the JDAM kit of the Artillery work.

Exactly. Which is why I think it's just flat brilliant the way they put it together. Even if it does mess up shell aerodynamics a bit with that straight section aft of the guidance fins.

 

[jsport]

IMUs are cheap these days.

 

[jsport]

That likely will change in the next 10 to 50 years but for now gps is the way to go for a PGK size device.

Simply a silly statement