Register here

Author Topic: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program  (Read 73908 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2820
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #345 on: November 06, 2018, 07:25:09 am »
Something smells here.  That's a 37% increase in muzzle velocity, and a 7% increase in projectile weight, so more than double the muzzle energy.  At the same time, the projectile weight increased by more than the total round weight, so the combined propellant and casing weight has actually decreased.

Was 30mmx113 really that inefficient?   Seems unlikely.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 08:13:46 am by TomS »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #346 on: November 06, 2018, 08:32:14 am »
https://www.army.mil/article/213383/can_you_shoot_me_now_auds_goes_undetected_with_new_ammunition

Quote
In addition to a passive detection system, the AUDS is experimenting with an advanced ammunition suite
for proximity fuzed ammunition. Proximity fuzed ammunition, when linked with sensors, allows the user
to destroy the UAV in flight from the ground station. The ammunition has a small radar in the front of it
so that as it gets close to the UAV, it senses the object is near and detonates.

"Kind of like a skeet round when you're shooting skeet,' said Menti about the spread of the round.
"It's the same idea. It's a pretty complex thing to do."

The ammunition has 50 percent more high explosive capability than a traditional M789
(a standard round used in Apache helicopters) as well as having a tracing function so the user
can see where the rounds are going when fired, said Menti.

Assuming it's not another typo in the data sheet ("Trace Tiem"), a muzzle velocity of 1,105 m/s is really hot for a 30 x 113mm.

"The ammunition has 50 percent more high explosive capability than a traditional M789
(a standard round used in Apache helicopters) as well as having a tracing function so the user
can see where the rounds are going when fired"

They're joking, right?  Somebody is going to try to EYEBALL something like this???:

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2055
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #347 on: November 06, 2018, 12:32:43 pm »
"The ammunition has 50 percent more high explosive capability than a traditional M789
(a standard round used in Apache helicopters) as well as having a tracing function so the user
can see where the rounds are going when fired"

They're joking, right?  Somebody is going to try to EYEBALL something like this???:

A closed-loop fire control system for a Remote Weapon Station (conceptually similar to Phalanx)
would use a IR sensor to track the outgoing IR tracer rounds + target and adjust as needed.

This dissertation goes into some of details of a surrogate system.

http://mars.gmu.edu/jspui/bitstream/handle/1920/10944/Murray_thesis_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #348 on: November 06, 2018, 12:50:06 pm »
"The ammunition has 50 percent more high explosive capability than a traditional M789
(a standard round used in Apache helicopters) as well as having a tracing function so the user
can see where the rounds are going when fired"

They're joking, right?  Somebody is going to try to EYEBALL something like this???:

A closed-loop fire control system for a Remote Weapon Station (conceptually similar to Phalanx)
would use a IR sensor to track the outgoing IR tracer rounds + target and adjust as needed.

This dissertation goes into some of details of a surrogate system.

http://mars.gmu.edu/jspui/bitstream/handle/1920/10944/Murray_thesis_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Even something like Phalanx. . .I'm skeptical that it could handle something that maneuverable, let alone a swarm of them.  One or two human-controlled, consumer-grade drones (think DJI Phantom-ish), sure.  A few dozen coordinated, local AI controlled swarm like those in the video I posted?  Not a prayer.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2055
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #349 on: November 06, 2018, 05:02:52 pm »
I was thinking you could easily proliferate the number of RWS mounts but XM914 is showing up as $250K a pop (in small quantities).

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #350 on: November 07, 2018, 07:17:52 am »
"The ammunition has 50 percent more high explosive capability than a traditional M789
(a standard round used in Apache helicopters) as well as having a tracing function so the user
can see where the rounds are going when fired"

They're joking, right?  Somebody is going to try to EYEBALL something like this???:

A  fire control system for a Remote Weapon Station (conceptually similar to Phalanx)
would use a IR sensor to track the outgoing IR tracer rounds + target and adjust as needed.

This dissertation goes into some of details of a surrogate system.

http://mars.gum.Ed/Jasper/bitstream/handle/1920/10944/Murray_thesis_2017.PD?sequence=1&is Allowed=y

Even something like Phalanx. . .I'm skeptical that it could handle something that maneuverable, let alone a swarm of them.  One or two , consecrate drones (think DJI Phantom's), sure.  A few dozen coordinated, local AI controlled swarm like those in the video I posted?  Not a prayer.
Any industrial age military will need a robust UAV from a military grade launch and recovery infrastructure.  Consumer grade UAVS are fine for a pre-industrial age, shambling, one off, asymmetric threats, but a decent range, and sufficient warhead equipped UAV is different story. Toys will not suffice for industrial age, nearly all climate military. The logistics and logistics costs of disposable swarms never made sense to a 'sustain to win strategy' in high intensity conflict and it still doesn't.
 They simply would be more hassle than their worth.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #351 on: November 07, 2018, 08:29:00 am »
Toys will not suffice for industrial age, nearly all climate military.

Funny, insurgents are using "toys" to damage (mission kill) parked military aircraft in Syria.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/08/defining-asymmetrical-warfare-extremists-use-retail-drones-to-attack-russian-air-base-in-syria/

"The logistics and logistics costs of disposable swarms never made sense to a 'sustain to win strategy' in high intensity conflict and it still doesn't."

Of course they do, when you think of them as much more intelligent, persistent, cluster munitions or mine fields.   A swarm of 100 each packing a warhead large enough to punch a hole in the barrel of a tank/SP Gun, and smart enough to do it, is going to make a HUGE mess of the other guy for the cost of one missile/dispenser.  Like CBU-97 but much more effective, useful, and intimidating.  A combination CBU-97 and Gator Mine.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 08:39:25 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #352 on: November 07, 2018, 10:18:28 am »
Toys will not suffice for industrial age, nearly all climate military.

Funny, insurgents are using "toys" to damage (mission kill) parked military aircraft in Syria.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/08/defining-asymmetrical-warfare-extremists-use-retail-drones-to-attack-russian-air-base-in-syria/

"The logistics and logistics costs of disposable swarms never made sense to a 'sustain to win strategy' in high intensity conflict and it still doesn't."

Of course they do, when you think of them as much more intelligent, persistent, cluster munitions or mine fields.   A swarm of 100 each packing a warhead large enough to punch a hole in the barrel of a tank/SP Gun, and smart enough to do it, is going to make a HUGE mess of the other guy for the cost of one missile/dispenser.  Like CBU-97 but much more effective, useful, and intimidating.  A combination CBU-97 and Gator Mine.
A future which may be pursued but more likely something larger.
https://www.popsci.com/china-new-drones-army-hexacopters

Logistics, range and safety for ones own troops would be great concern. Better an re-armable UAS one can use over and over for weeks expending the cost of 40mm grenades and not even any expenditure when the target isn't right. Nonlethal to anti-tank to smoke to flare etc. Not doable w/ a expendable drone.

The US is not part of the ban on Clusters but told the BBC "The US is taking steps to ensure that any cluster munitions used after 2018 have a failure rate of less than 1%. " A bunch of quad rotors w/subs on them laying around civilian areas does not serve well the US attempting to par back the use of subs. ATACMS and MLRS have already cut back submunition warheads. 97s and damocles have their uses but at much longer range a UAS/munitions launchers themselves launched from high performance aircraft.

Was well aware of the airfield attack that is an example of shambolic rabble which get s one time shot before counter measures are established by a industrial military like Russia.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 11:52:55 am by jsport »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #353 on: November 07, 2018, 11:33:41 am »
Toys will not suffice for industrial age, nearly all climate military.

Funny, insurgents are using "toys" to damage (mission kill) parked military aircraft in Syria.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/08/defining-asymmetrical-warfare-extremists-use-retail-drones-to-attack-russian-air-base-in-syria/

"The logistics and logistics costs of disposable swarms never made sense to a 'sustain to win strategy' in high intensity conflict and it still doesn't."

Of course they do, when you think of them as much more intelligent, persistent, cluster munitions or mine fields.   A swarm of 100 each packing a warhead large enough to punch a hole in the barrel of a tank/SP Gun, and smart enough to do it, is going to make a HUGE mess of the other guy for the cost of one missile/dispenser.  Like CBU-97 but much more effective, useful, and intimidating.  A combination CBU-97 and Gator Mine.
A future which may be pursued. Logistics, range and safety for ones own troops would be great concern.

It will certainly be, and is being, pursued. 



"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #354 on: November 07, 2018, 11:56:33 am »
Perdixlow low range and low on lethality and Locust is a again one shot expensive crash site. Until something returns and reloads, costly one shot wonders when engagements may last months and include alot of misses that have to paid for. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #355 on: November 07, 2018, 12:57:24 pm »
Perdixlow low range and low on lethality and Locust is a again one shot expensive crash site. Until something returns and reloads, costly one shot wonders when engagements may last months and include alot of misses that have to paid for.

Again, you don't need a 1000lb warhead to mission kill something.  Also, "one shot wonders" needn't be expensive.  Did you even bother to look at what's being done in Syria by insurgents with COTS items?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #356 on: November 07, 2018, 01:07:56 pm »
Perdixlow low range and low on lethality and Locust is a again one shot expensive crash site. Until something returns and reloads, costly one shot wonders when engagements may last months and include alot of misses that have to paid for.

Again, you don't need a 1000lb warhead to mission kill something.  Also, "one shot wonders" needn't be expensive.  Did you even bother to look at what's being done in Syria by insurgents with COTS items?
As stated before well aware of insurgent so called even long range attacks on airfields. Has been all over multi-media for some time. One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS. Did you even read USG has told the BBC about the Cluster problem. See 10:18:28 post.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #357 on: November 07, 2018, 02:13:32 pm »
One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS. Did you even read USG has told the BBC about the Cluster problem. See 10:18:28 post.

You keep tossing out "one shot wonders".  I take it you also consider other such "one shot wonders" as  grenades, artillery shells, missiles, etc. etc. etc. equally worthless?  As for logistics, it's part of the cost of doing business.  Or do you think we should strip infantry of everything but a rifle and put the cavalry back on horses?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #358 on: November 07, 2018, 02:26:01 pm »

One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS.

Not sure what talking about. An expendable UAV/muniton/Grenade is going to be pricey and unreliable compared to real UAS firing a grenade and return to do it again for months or years.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #359 on: November 07, 2018, 03:32:08 pm »

One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS.

Not sure what talking about. An expendable UAV/muniton/Grenade is going to be pricey and unreliable compared to real UAS firing a grenade and return to do it again for months or years.

Just to narrow the discussion, what do you consider a "real" UAS?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.