Extended-range precision artillery hits targets from 36 kilometers

Also WE know how mutch explosive the BER Version for 127 (13kg) and 155mm (7,5kg) have. If we have a diagram about how mutch the guidance takes of Volume we could guess how mutch there is.
 

Attachments

  • 22266-paper-Vulcano-IM-test-23-09-2019 (2).pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 15
kqcke for you said:
Also WE know how mutch explosive the BER Version for 127 (13kg) and 155mm (7,5kg) have. If we have a diagram about how mutch the guidance takes of Volume we could guess how mutch there is.
Click to expand...
So the 127mm contains more explosive than the 155mm? Must be a longer projectile I guess.

Ah yes, 1.5m long for 127mm vs 0.95m for 155mm, and also 40kg vs 36kg all up respectively.


1695150566403.png
 
Last edited:
Yeah. But thats only for BER but i think thats whats needed. Maybe a Future Variant of the 155mm Version If longer (probaly a limitation because of PzH 2k autoloader)
 
The whole point of adding electronics to a shell is to cut down the number of rounds necessary to perform a mission. When the Ukraine conflict began the Russian goal was quantity over accuracy. Russia was trying to deny movement and soften up targets for ground troops, requiring many rounds over time. Dumb shells were the shells of choice. The defender on the other hand could not match quantity and needed to make the most of each shot, therefore precision rounds were preferable. Shoot and move. Attrition favors the side with a non-existent to sustainable attrition rate. The results have been high on both sides initially, but have largely been mitigated with technology on the Ukraine side. Russia just keeps pouring resources in and it has taken a predictable toll.
 
MadRat said:
The whole point of adding electronics to a shell is to cut down the number of rounds necessary to perform a mission. When the Ukraine conflict began the Russian goal was quantity over accuracy. Russia was trying to deny movement and soften up targets for ground troops, requiring many rounds over time. Dumb shells were the shells of choice. The defender on the other hand could not match quantity and needed to make the most of each shot, therefore precision rounds were preferable. Shoot and move. Attrition favors the side with a non-existent to sustainable attrition rate. The results have been high on both sides initially, but have largely been mitigated with technology on the Ukraine side. Russia just keeps pouring resources in and it has taken a predictable toll.
Click to expand...
There's reasons you want both lots of cheap dumb shells and some super precise shells. Which is what made the US Precision Guidance Kit so valuable, as it could turn any deep fuzed 155mm shell into a precision round. Not quite as accurate as an Excalibur, but good enough most of the time.
 
Forest Green said:
Agree, there's nothing on range or much else. Can only really assume longer range than existing PGK and better immunity to jamming.
Click to expand...

That's because PGK is just a screw-in fuze, so its range is highly dependent on the range of the shell it is attached to. This version can work at longer ranges than the old one, but it isn't adding range to the shell by itself.
 
Any link to the source where it says GMLRS was withdrawn? I'm still seeing videos even today.
 
Last edited:
It seems hard to believe. All the 127mm are 66 cm (more or less), a 155mm like the M110/A1/A2 is 68.
 
mirco1961 said:
It seems hard to believe. All the 127mm are 66 cm (more or less), a 155mm like the M110/A1/A2 is 68.
Click to expand...
The dart seems to extend well back into the body of the cartridge in the case of the 127mm though.
 
As I understand it BAE hypervelocity projectile family in which the XM1155-SC is part of, is neither ramjet or rocket assisted, so how did it achieve similar range to the Boeing/nammo shell?
 
donnage99 said:
As I understand it BAE hypervelocity projectile family in which the XM1155-SC is part of, is neither ramjet or rocket assisted, so how did it achieve similar range to the Boeing/nammo shell?
Click to expand...
Subcaliber with an optimised aerydynamic design.
 
Firefinder said:
Eyeah the XM1155sc.

That was just shot this past... February Irc, and broke the 110 km range mark.

Then this past October you had the Ramjet 155 breaking 100km from a M777.

Fun things been happening in the Arty world
Click to expand...
I knew there were several long-range development items, just nothing deemed ready to field as such.
 
Forest Green said:
I knew there were several long-range development items, just nothing deemed ready to field as such.
Click to expand...
Lots of these design are still in the test phase.

But it the section of testing were Real Life Data from Combat be...

Priceless basically.

Like what going on in ukraine you can not properly simulate by any other way then doing it.

So any feed back even if its basically two lines of complaint be worth more then shooting a dozen on a close clean range.

Cause real life is not a close clean range.
 
Firefinder said:
Lots of these design are still in the test phase.

But it the section of testing were Real Life Data from Combat be...

Priceless basically.

Like what going on in ukraine you can not properly simulate by any other way then doing it.

So any feed back even if its basically two lines of complaint be worth more then shooting a dozen on a close clean range.

Cause real life is not a close clean range.
Click to expand...
It's a good place to iron-out the guidance and jam-resistance aspects as well as the implications of field use, i.e. dirt.
 
Firefinder said:
Lots of these design are still in the test phase.

But it the section of testing were Real Life Data from Combat be...

Priceless basically.

Like what going on in ukraine you can not properly simulate by any other way then doing it.

So any feed back even if its basically two lines of complaint be worth more then shooting a dozen on a close clean range.

Cause real life is not a close clean range.
Click to expand...
It's why the only testing done on the GLSDB was basic safety. Making sure they wouldn't blow up in the launcher and then getting live combat data is every ordnance engineer's dream.

Result: needs better GPS-degraded performance. Needs much better GPS-degraded performance.
 
I'm surprised they can make more accurate inertial guidance for these short-range munition these days when you look at the claimed accuracy of AIRS 40 years ago. Sure that was prohibitively expensive, but a short-range munition INS doesn't need anything like that level of accuracy to land within 10m from 100-150km away and then you'll be completely immune to jamming.
 
Pretty sure SDB needs to land within 2-3 meters of a target to be really effective. It's an armor piercing bomb not a medium capacity one.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Pretty sure SDB needs to land within 2-3 meters of a target to be really effective. It's an armor piercing bomb not a medium capacity one.
Click to expand...
Depends what the target is. HIMARS is capable of taking out more vulnerable systems like SAM launchers and MLRS systems with much less than direct hits based on footage. You'd also be surprised what is possible with inertial guidance.

en.wikipedia.org

Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

AIRS is a fluid-suspended gyrostabilized platform system, as opposed to one using a gimballed gyrostabilized platform. It consists of a beryllium sphere floating in fluid. Jet nozzles are used to stabilize the inertial platform as commanded from the sensors. This design not only eliminates the problem of gimbal lock, but also makes it extremely accurate (drift less than 1.5×10^−5 °/h), to the point that any further improvement would give a negligible benefit to the missile's CEP.
Click to expand...

Work that out even for a 30 minute 14,000km flight:

14,000,000 x tan (0.000015/2) = 1.8m

In fact the only reason the LGM-118 had a much larger CEP was because the warheads separated from the bus and were thereafter unguided.

AIRS was prohibitively expensive for regular use, but it must surely be possible nearly 40 years later to design an inertial system that can provide sub-5m accuracy over a 100-150km trip lasting only a few minutes.
 
Forest Green said:
Depends what the target is.
Click to expand...

The target is the things SDB is good at killing: hard, preferably concrete, and squishy inside. Ammo bunkers, HASes, pillboxes, etc.

Inventing Accuracy is a good book but it's not particularly relevant for SDB I.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The target is the things SDB is good at killing: hard, preferably concrete, and squishy inside. Ammo bunkers, HASes, pillboxes, etc.

Inventing Accuracy is a good book but it's not particularly relevant for SDB I.
Click to expand...
A lot of those objects are a lot more than 3m wide though.
 
Dilandu said:
There is a difference between ballistic missile, and glide bomb. The second is much more subjected to the wind drift.
Click to expand...
Wind drift still causes the INS to register an acceleration (any acceleration is registered) and the bomb can manoeuvre to counter that.
Kat Tsun said:
...and the degraded accuracy CEP of GLSDB in combat has been reduced to 30, or more, meters...
Click to expand...
That needn't be the case with better INS.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Wind drift still causes the INS to register an accelerdation (any acceleration is registered) and the bomb can manoeuvre to counter that.
Click to expand...

The type of sensors used in the INS of the SDB are cellphone adjacent. They're not very good, both because of size constraints, and because of cost constraints. If there is any "solution" it will be transient and fleeting, because it is the same sort of REC tug of war that results from temporary gaps in ability of the enemy to jam a GPS signal and temporary gains in ability to overcome the enemy's REC.

Forest Green said:
That needn't be the case with better INS.
Click to expand...

...which would rapidly make GLSDB useless, because the point is to be cheap, which good INS is decidedly not. The most immediate solution is to change the antenna in the SDB which might make the SDB land within 10-20 meters of the target I guess.

It is possible that GLSDB may simply never actually be viable in a major ground war without a terminal seeker al a SDB II.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The type of sensors used in the INS of the SDB are cellphone adjacent. They're not very good, both because of size constraints, and because of cost constraints. If there is any "solution" it will be transient and fleeting, because it is the same sort of REC tug of war that results from temporary gaps in ability of the enemy to jam a GPS signal and temporary gains in ability to overcome the enemy's REC.
Click to expand...
I think the INS could be made a lot better. Looking about the modern commercial sphere, 0.0035deg/hour is available in an SDB-sized package for $1300, that equates to just 9m over a 150km flight lasting 1 hour. Over say 10 minutes, it's more like 1.5m, rendering GPS redundant.

Kat Tsun said:
...which would rapidly make GLSDB useless, because the point is to be cheap, which good INS is decidedly not. The most immediate solution is to change the antenna in the SDB which might make the SDB land within 10-20 meters of the target I guess.

It is possible that GLSDB may simply never actually be viable in a major ground war without a terminal seeker al a SDB II.
Click to expand...
You can't jam INS.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
I think the INS could be made a lot better. Looking about the modern commercial sphere, 0.0035deg/hour is available in an SDB-sized package, that equates to just 9m over a 150km flight lasting 1 hour. Over say 10 minutes, it's more like 1.5m, rendering GPS redundant.
Click to expand...

If only it that were easy. Alas, the easiest solution is a new antenna. The second easiest is a terminal seeker.

Forest Green said:
You can't jam INS.
Click to expand...

Do you even know how SDB works?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom