Register here

Author Topic: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program  (Read 73903 times)

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 #360 on: November 07, 2018, 03:48:45 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?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #361 on: November 07, 2018, 05:39:36 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?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

Note I did not ask what you think a "real" UAS isn't.  As for the value of the conversation swarms are going to be a thing whether you like it or not.  If you don't see the value then don't participate in the conversations.  Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. 
"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 #362 on: November 08, 2018, 08:04:24 am »

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?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

Note I did not ask what you think a "real" UAS isn't.  As for the value of the conversation swarms are going to be a thing whether you like it or not.  If you don't see the value then don't participate in the conversations.  Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
In the end disposable drones will not prevail in modern Armies. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #363 on: November 08, 2018, 08:36:02 am »

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?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

Note I did not ask what you think a "real" UAS isn't.  As for the value of the conversation swarms are going to be a thing whether you like it or not.  If you don't see the value then don't participate in the conversations.  Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
In the end disposable drones will not prevail in modern Armies. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

Time will tell.  Maybe they'll be a flash in the pan, or forever be limited gathering information.  Maybe they will transform warfare completely.  Maybe they'll be just another tool in the tool box.  I'm thinking somewhere between 2 and 3.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 08:42:41 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1719
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #364 on: November 09, 2018, 04:08:16 am »
From Lockheed's presentation at the Warsaw Security Forum last month:

- Sentinel A4 (upgrade)
- Next Gen. Missile
- MSHORAD Missile
- MHTK
- DE/HEL
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

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 #365 on: November 13, 2018, 02:30:34 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-builds-1000-mile-supergun/

"AUSA: Why is the Army confident it can build a Strategic Long-Range Cannon to shoot with precision more than one thousand miles? Because the superweapon will be essentially supersizing proven technologies found in the existing 155 mm howitzer and rocket-boosted artillery shells from the 1980s.

“I don’t want to oversimplify, (but) it’s a bigger one of those,” Col. John Rafferty told reporters here. “We’re scaling up things that we’re already doing.”

Soon to be a one-star general, Rafferty is the Army’s modernization director for Long-Range Strategic Fires, the service’s top priority, which covers everything from revolutionary hypersonic missiles to longer cannon barrels for the venerable 155mm. While the Strategic Long-Range Cannon — SLRC, pronounced (unfortunately) “Slorc” — will hit targets at ranges comparable to the bleeding-edge hypersonics, Rafferty emphasized the cannon is built on proven principles, just bigger.

How much bigger are we talking about? Will it just look like a scaled-up M109 Paladin howitzer, I asked, or more like a World War II railroad cannon, or even Saddam Hussein’s infamous never-finished “supergun“?

It’ll be “pretty big,” one of Rafferty’s officers said, but it’ll be “mobile” — or, he added after a pause, at least “movable.”

“Relocatable,” another officer suggested."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #366 on: November 13, 2018, 07:40:40 pm »
I wonder if we're missing something.  If we consider all of the acceleration doesn't have to happen in the barrel maybe it could be a bit more realistic.  Forget ramjet or scramjet, what about an external burning projectile?  IIRC they were able to achieve about 1000 ISP back in the 60s/70s with that.  If you had something like an M107 (or long barrel M110) with a sub-caliber round using external burning on the way up. . .  If it's US Army it'll have to be air transportable so that would seem to put an upper limit on the thing. 
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 07:43:50 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1830
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #367 on: November 13, 2018, 08:45:21 pm »
The use of jet/rocket/"burning" projectiles is that they mess badly with the trajectory of the round after it leaves the barrel.   While the use of guidance systems in each round could help there, they add appreciably to the cost of each round.  As the objective of using a gun over a missile is cheapness, it rather defeats the purpose.

The South Africans used base-bleed extended range rounds - now pretty universally used in 155mm guns.   the base-bleed extended range rounds don't add to the thrust, per se, of the round, what they do is remove the vacuum behind the base of the round, making it "slippier" through the air.  Longer barrels increase muzzle-velocity and hence range.   Larger calibres allow greater quantities of powder to be burnt, more quickly, hence increasing muzzle velocity and range.   The Germans worked on, just before the end of WWII a multi-chamber gun, the V-3, aimed at London from France.   Gerard Bull was also working on a multi-chamber weapon when he was assassinated.   I rather suspect that base-bleed, extended range rounds, fired from a longer barrel with multiple chambers would work rather well.   However, it would necessarily be overly mobile nor relocatable (although multiple section barrels/chambers might make that possible).

In the end, IMO the use of a guided missile is cheaper and easier for a thousand plus miles range, as against a gun.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2055
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #368 on: November 14, 2018, 01:27:24 am »
Forget ramjet or scramjet, what about an external burning projectile? 

It was looked at in the 70's for artillery shells and did produce net thrust.  Accounting for
variations in launch conditions and atmospheric pressure is tricky which I think leads you
to throttleable designs. 

For reference, the standard PGK is around $9k per unit. I'm sure the newer versions they are envisioning
with uplinks etc. are going to be more expensive but maybe not dramatically so.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #369 on: November 14, 2018, 04:49:16 am »
The use of jet/rocket/"burning" projectiles is that they mess badly with the trajectory of the round after it leaves the barrel.   While the use of guidance systems in each round could help there, they add appreciably to the cost of each round.  As the objective of using a gun over a missile is cheapness, it rather defeats the purpose.

The South Africans used base-bleed extended range rounds - now pretty universally used in 155mm guns.   the base-bleed extended range rounds don't add to the thrust, per se, of the round, what they do is remove the vacuum behind the base of the round, making it "slippier" through the air.  Longer barrels increase muzzle-velocity and hence range.   Larger calibres allow greater quantities of powder to be burnt, more quickly, hence increasing muzzle velocity and range.   The Germans worked on, just before the end of WWII a multi-chamber gun, the V-3, aimed at London from France.   Gerard Bull was also working on a multi-chamber weapon when he was assassinated.   I rather suspect that base-bleed, extended range rounds, fired from a longer barrel with multiple chambers would work rather well.   However, it would necessarily be overly mobile nor relocatable (although multiple section barrels/chambers might make that possible).

In the end, IMO the use of a guided missile is cheaper and easier for a thousand plus miles range, as against a gun.

Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #370 on: November 14, 2018, 04:53:16 am »
Forget ramjet or scramjet, what about an external burning projectile? 

It was looked at in the 70's for artillery shells and did produce net thrust.  Accounting for
variations in launch conditions and atmospheric pressure is tricky which I think leads you
to throttleable designs. 

For reference, the standard PGK is around $9k per unit. I'm sure the newer versions they are envisioning
with uplinks etc. are going to be more expensive but maybe not dramatically so.

Even so something like an Excalibur with external burning (a much longer round I'd think) fired with a sabot out of an 8" (or larger) gun is probably still going to be cheaper than a 1000 mile range missile or flying a bomb to the target I'd think.  They're saying a 1000-mile range gun.  Just trying to think of ways that might be achieved with a gun that can still fit on a C-17.   :o
"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 #371 on: November 14, 2018, 02:26:00 pm »
Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.

The confusion might stem from the fact that external burning was also used to reduce base drag.

Even so something like an Excalibur with external burning (a much longer round I'd think) fired with a sabot out of an 8" (or larger) gun is probably still going to be cheaper than a 1000 mile range missile or flying a bomb to the target I'd think. 

Agreed. Wonder how exotic they want to go? That Green Launch light-gas gun is intended to launch (essentially) a sabot'ed rocket-assisted projectile.

https://greenlaunch.org

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1719
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #372 on: November 14, 2018, 04:34:59 pm »
Put an EM launch system on a 747. That's exotic ;)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #373 on: November 14, 2018, 05:06:46 pm »
Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.

The confusion might stem from the fact that external burning was also used to reduce base drag.

Hmmm.  Looks like it's mostly useful for lateral acceleration (divert) and that keeping the flame lit for propulsion would be tricky.  (Then again, who knows what they've figured out since then.)

https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V08_N2_1968/V8_N2_1968_Billig.pdf

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

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1830
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #374 on: November 14, 2018, 05:37:57 pm »
The use of jet/rocket/"burning" projectiles is that they mess badly with the trajectory of the round after it leaves the barrel.   While the use of guidance systems in each round could help there, they add appreciably to the cost of each round.  As the objective of using a gun over a missile is cheapness, it rather defeats the purpose.

The South Africans used base-bleed extended range rounds - now pretty universally used in 155mm guns.   the base-bleed extended range rounds don't add to the thrust, per se, of the round, what they do is remove the vacuum behind the base of the round, making it "slippier" through the air.  Longer barrels increase muzzle-velocity and hence range.   Larger calibres allow greater quantities of powder to be burnt, more quickly, hence increasing muzzle velocity and range.   The Germans worked on, just before the end of WWII a multi-chamber gun, the V-3, aimed at London from France.   Gerard Bull was also working on a multi-chamber weapon when he was assassinated.   I rather suspect that base-bleed, extended range rounds, fired from a longer barrel with multiple chambers would work rather well.   However, it would necessarily be overly mobile nor relocatable (although multiple section barrels/chambers might make that possible).

In the end, IMO the use of a guided missile is cheaper and easier for a thousand plus miles range, as against a gun.

Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.

I didn't suggest they were.