Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
3
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Tell me, do you like the idea of people lobbing missiles hither and yon with fully considering the consequences of doing so?
Do you like the idea of an adversary being able to hit you within minutes of deciding to do so and not being able to respond in kind?
All depends. Your ability to hit the other side "in minutes" will not deter them from firing their missiles at you, first, if they have decided to. What will deter them is that you can hit their territory. Does it matter that it takes a few hours, rather than a few minutes? Nope, they still have to consider the potential damage that will occur to their territory, how many civilians will die, be irradiated, how many buildings will be destroy, etc. All you've done is reduce the response time, nothing more. Your leadership has not considered whether your response is appropriate or not. That is the problem with modern warfare, it becomes faster and faster and there is less time for consideration.

Reagan didn't consider the ramifications of nuclear war - all out nuclear war - until he had seen "The Day After" in 1983. I find it incredible that it took that long for a man who was your President to think about the consequences of nuclear war when he commanded the largest, deadliest, most destructive force mankind has ever known. If find it incredible that you think that your forces will only be used in "response" when evidence has suggested the reverse is just as likely. Particularly with someone like the present President in command.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
3
Nukes are a completely different issue. The thread is about a conventional surface to surface ballistic missile, not a nuke.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
From U.S. Army Aviation, Missile, Research, Development and Engineering Center Facebook post:

The Maneuver Aviation Fires Integrated Application, or MAFIA, provides swift communication through command levels and quickly generates precision coordinates for accurate, predictable, organic and immediate precision and non-precision fires in urban and rural environments. Government developed imagery and cartography loaded on a smartphone or tablet provide an accurate, 3D display of the globe. MAFIA creates, sends and receives situational awareness and fire mission data between MAFIA End User Devices, command and control systems, external sensors and external weapons systems using a selection of radio devices and local area network connections.
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
3
SpudmanWP said:
Nukes are a completely different issue. The thread is about a conventional surface to surface ballistic missile, not a nuke.
To this thread? Perhaps. To the global response thread? No, they aren't.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
Kadija_Man said:
SpudmanWP said:
Nukes are a completely different issue. The thread is about a conventional surface to surface ballistic missile, not a nuke.
To this thread? Perhaps. To the global response thread? No, they aren't.
Well, we're in this thread aren't we? If you want to talk nukes take it to another thread.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Tell me, do you like the idea of people lobbing missiles hither and yon with fully considering the consequences of doing so?
Do you like the idea of an adversary being able to hit you within minutes of deciding to do so and not being able to respond in kind?
All depends. Your ability to hit the other side "in minutes" will not deter them from firing their missiles at you, first, if they have decided to. What will deter them is that you can hit their territory. Does it matter that it takes a few hours, rather than a few minutes? Nope, they still have to consider the potential damage that will occur to their territory, how many civilians will die, be irradiated, how many buildings will be destroy, etc. All you've done is reduce the response time, nothing more. Your leadership has not considered whether your response is appropriate or not. That is the problem with modern warfare, it becomes faster and faster and there is less time for consideration.

Reagan didn't consider the ramifications of nuclear war - all out nuclear war - until he had seen "The Day After" in 1983. I find it incredible that it took that long for a man who was your President to think about the consequences of nuclear war when he commanded the largest, deadliest, most destructive force mankind has ever known. If find it incredible that you think that your forces will only be used in "response" when evidence has suggested the reverse is just as likely. Particularly with someone like the present President in command.
You're arguing an irrelevant point. This thread isn't about nuclear weapons. While a PGS-type weapon could carry a nuke (China's certainly can) this thread is about the ability to hit a target on short notice, not what type of warhead it's being hit with, and particularly not about one's ideology re. nuclear weapons. Any further attempts to derail this topic will be reported.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Tell me, do you like the idea of people lobbing missiles hither and yon with fully considering the consequences of doing so?
Do you like the idea of an adversary being able to hit you within minutes of deciding to do so and not being able to respond in kind?
All depends. Your ability to hit the other side "in minutes" will not deter them from firing their missiles at you, first, if they have decided to. What will deter them is that you can hit their territory. Does it matter that it takes a few hours, rather than a few minutes? Nope, they still have to consider the potential damage that will occur to their territory, how many civilians will die, be irradiated, how many buildings will be destroy, etc. All you've done is reduce the response time, nothing more. Your leadership has not considered whether your response is appropriate or not. That is the problem with modern warfare, it becomes faster and faster and there is less time for consideration.

Reagan didn't consider the ramifications of nuclear war - all out nuclear war - until he had seen "The Day After" in 1983. I find it incredible that it took that long for a man who was your President to think about the consequences of nuclear war when he commanded the largest, deadliest, most destructive force mankind has ever known. If find it incredible that you think that your forces will only be used in "response" when evidence has suggested the reverse is just as likely. Particularly with someone like the present President in command.
You're arguing an irrelevant point. This thread isn't about nuclear weapons. While a PGS-type weapon could carry a nuke (China's certainly can) this thread is about the ability to hit a target on short notice, not what type of warhead it's being hit with, and particularly not about one's ideology re. nuclear weapons. Any further attempts to derail this topic will be reported.
And to continue to spout the lie about Reagan even after I posted a link to a book that is all about Reagan and nuclear weapons/war since the 1950s. Derailing threads that is so unlike the K-man ::)
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2018/08/08/army-takes-serious-steps-toward-interim-cruise-missile-protection-capability/

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — The Army is heading toward acquiring an interim cruise missile protection capability as part of an effort being spearheaded by the air-and-missile defense cross functional team within the service’s new Futures Command.

The Army’s AMD CFT took on the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 program as one of its priorities in April this year at the request of the Army Under Secretary Ryan McCarthy due to challenges with the baseline program and the need to prioritize the development of a cruise missile defense capability, Col. William Darne, the AMD CFT’s chief of staff, said August 7 at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium.

Originally IFPC Inc. 2 was to address rockets, artillery and mortar threats but then the Army decided to focus on cruise missile and counter-unmanned aircraft systems missions for the increment as the C-RAM threat was being met through a different system in the service’s inventory.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Y06qyk7gY
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
From AMRDEC Facebook page

The Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile Technology is a Science & Technology program designed to develop component technologies that are critical for enabling the U.S. Army to provide extended range, ground based precision fires in GPS challenged environments that counters enemy advantages. LC-TERM will provide cost effective component technologies that enable: extended range engagements; improved delivery accuracy in GPS challenged environments; and provide selectable lethal effects against both area and point targets in a single warhead. These component technologies directly support the Long Range Precision Fires Acquisition Program
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/army-seeks-1000-mile-missiles-vs-russia-china/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20Defense%20Multi%20Domain&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=65829443&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8KeFsJy4c54bCBxjhrbJRB_oqSpwBsgTgWw6h3L3sAkMte9k0xills-LuOJsnR-qoft3Z68LQd8uIqaPyZh8hmfmMZ8A&_hsmi=65829443

WASHINGTON: For the first time since the Soviet Union fell, the Army is developing weapons with a thousand-mile range. That’s roughly five times the range of anything the Army fields today and three times the range of previously announced programs. The payoff in a future war with Russia or China could be dramatic – but the technological, financial and even legal problems are daunting.

The ambition? Develop not one but two types of ultra-long-range missiles to help blow holes in advanced air defenses:

One Army weapon, not yet officially named, would be a high-performance hypersonic missile, tearing through missile defenses at Mach 5-plus to kill critical hardened targets such as command bunkers.
The other, the Strategic Long-Range Cannon (SLRC), would use a gun barrel to launch cheaper, slower missiles at larger numbers of softer targets like radars, missile launchers and mobile command posts.

Together with comparable weapons launched from jets, ships, and submarines, these ground-launched “strategic fires” would blast a path for attacking aircraft, from Army helicopters to Air Force bombers. That kind of mutual support – formally known as Multi-Domain Operations – would transform the Army’s role from a consumer of the other services’ support to a full partner in providing long-range firepower.
Need double the range in the Pacific at least.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
"The payoff in a future war with Russia or China could be dramatic – but the technological, financial and even legal problems are daunting."

"Legal"? Please. Russia is already in violation of the INF Treaty, we should just withdraw from it. Nobody else is hamstrung by it except the US. As for technological, all it requires is will. It's not like we never built the Pershing II before.

As for a thousand mile range, I guess it depends on how they plan on launching it. If from sea or land, yep, needs more range if they plan to contend with things like the DF-21 and DF-26. From air it would be less of an issue. From land though, they're limited for lack of a TEL and the requirement to be air-transportable.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
2
sferrin said:
"The payoff in a future war with Russia or China could be dramatic – but the technological, financial and even legal problems are daunting."

"Legal"? Please. Russia is already in violation of the INF Treaty, we should just withdraw from it. Nobody else is hamstrung by it except the US. As for technological, all it requires is will. It's not like we never built the Pershing II before.
I tend to think ground-launched hypersonic boost-glide would be both INF Treaty and New START compliant.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
0
I think so as well given that it is likely to spend less than 50% of its time in a Ballistic Profile.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
16
…for the first time since the Soviet Union fell, the Army is developing weapons with a thousand-mile range….

… Strategic Long-Range Cannon (SLRC), would use a gun barrel to launch cheaper, slower missiles at larger numbers of softer targets like radars, missile launchers and mobile command posts…

Is this long range cannon shooting a super LRLAP round or is it just acting like a single cell VLS on wheels? A ballistic trajectory with a 1000 mile range would go pretty high up. If it stays low it will have to use a lot more force or propellant. Unless they are thinking of packing a tiny jet engine behind an artillery round.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/aiming-the-armys-thousand-mile-missiles/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20Defense%20Land&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=65865570&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9B4XKXQVV7O_maKxLaKaqNJrxB70vz7NpcRXMGpMa5lfdBx06lg6aDfhcrsvqjLST9QWA4tOCsyRmkqUSO_uSBl7mjhA&_hsmi=65865570

WASHINGTON: The Army wants new long-range missiles that can shoot a thousand miles. But first it has to figure out how to use them. That requires training a new cadre of Army targeteers to work more closely with the other services than ever before. Why? Because even if the Army can build the new superweapons, it’ll be firing blind unless it is hooked up with the other services’ satellites, planes, and drones to spot targets. The smartest smart weapon is pretty dumb if you don’t know what to shoot at.

What’s more, long-range firepower requires not only long-range sensors to spot targets, but an in-depth planning process that starts long before the first shot is fired. That’s something the other services have done for years for airstrikes, but the Army hasn’t had to. So the service has created an Army Multi-Domain Targeting Center to train a new cadre of joint-certified targeteers.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/will-the-armys-1000-mile-missiles-kill-reagans-inf-treaty/

WASHINGTON: The arms control community is up in, well, arms over the Army’s plan for missiles with a thousand-mile range. Such weapons could blow holes in Russian or Chinese defenses in a major war – but their first victim may well be an ailing arms control agreement, the INF treaty.

The fundamental questions:

Is it worth trying to save the treaty, even though the Russians are cheating and the Chinese never signed?
Is it better to void a treaty that binds our hands and build new weapons, even at the risk of an arms race?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
0
Spending bill shifts OCO funding to base for IM-SHORAD


Congressional appropriators are supporting the Army's interim project to bolster maneuver forces in Europe against air and missile threats entirely through the base budget, following a trend to commit some of the service's assets in the region to long-term funding.

The fiscal year 2019 spending bill adopted by the Senate last week includes a $23 million transfer from the Overseas Contingency Operations account to the base account for the Initial Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense, or IM-SHORAD, program, a battalion-level capability to be mounted on the Stryker combat vehicle.

The total $79 million in base research, development, test and evaluation funding also includes a $39 million decrease due to "program growth ahead of acquisition strategy."

The Army's vice chief of staff has approved a directed requirement for 144 systems by FY-22. The service plans to procure an initial prototype through an other transaction agreement by the end of FY-18, according to Steve Miller, operations chief in the Army's Cruise Missile Defense Systems project office.

The service aims to use the interim system, deemed an urgent need in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve, to provide stability to Stryker and armored brigade combat teams and reassure NATO allies.

IM-SHORAD is the first part of the layered capability the Army envisions for air and missile defense, with any future system intended to complement the Indirect Fire Protection Capability.

The Army has chosen Leonardo DRS to supply the mission equipment package for IM-SHORAD, which includes Raytheon's Stinger missile.

The service's early efforts for SHORAD are focused on the Stinger and the humvee-mounted Avenger air defense system.

Meanwhile, the FY-19 spending bill cut $17.6 million from the Avenger modifications line in procurement funding, cited as "ahead of need" for IM-SHORAD.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/09/17/us-army-weapons-and-munitions-tech-development-get-congressional-cash-injection/

WASHINGTON — U.S. Army weapons and munitions technology development is getting a big cash injection in the fiscal 2019 spending bill, which emerged from conference committee late Sept. 13.

Research, development, technology and evaluation dollars for weapons and munitions technology saw a $343 million boost in the appropriations bill expected to be voted on by both chambers this week. The Army had requested just $40.44 million in RDT&E funding to improve weapons and munitions, but lawmakers are providing a total $383.44 million.

Additionally, the bill adds $139.68 million to the Army’s RDT&E budget for weapons and munitions advanced technology. The Army requested just $102 million in FY19.

A large portion of the funding is targeted at the Army’s top modernization priority — Long Range Precision Fires.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
From Inside Defense pay site

Army eyeing new high-mobility howitzer acquisition for Stryker units in 2020s

The Army is soliciting industry for information on a potential replacement for its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams' towed cannons, a prelude to a potential "High Mobility SBCT Howitzer" program the service is considering launching in the early 2020s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This focus on firepower makes me speculate what Russia was doing in Crimea/Ukraine with artillery and missile/rocket batteries opened some eyes at the Pentagon.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/air-and-missile-defense-at-a-crossroads-new-concepts-and-technologies-to-de

AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE AT A CROSSROADS: New Concepts and Technologies to Defend America’s Overseas Bases
October 3, 2018 Mark Gunzinger, Carl Rehberg
Resources: Future Warfare & Concepts

Mark Gunzinger and Carl Rehberg address how DoD could take advantage of mature technologies to develop higher capacity and more cost-effective air and missile defenses for its overseas bases. It assesses the potential for a layered, distributed defense that integrates multiple new non-kinetic and kinetic systems to defeat salvo attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Study at the link
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
0
bobbymike said:
From Inside Defense pay site

Army eyeing new high-mobility howitzer acquisition for Stryker units in 2020s

The Army is soliciting industry for information on a potential replacement for its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams' towed cannons, a prelude to a potential "High Mobility SBCT Howitzer" program the service is considering launching in the early 2020s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This focus on firepower makes me speculate what Russia was doing in Crimea/Ukraine with artillery and missile/rocket batteries opened some eyes at the Pentagon.
https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e4630452e91e9530ad3851c999867355&tab=core&_cview=0
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
5
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-army-launches-sweeping-long-range-artillery-modernization-plan?utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=16981&utm_medium=email&elq2=006a19db7855491d91b527f6932a64de

In 17 years of fighting in Afghanistan, the maximum range of the U.S. Army’s artillery batteries never seemed like a problem. If a ground unit needing indirect fire support drifted beyond the range of the nearest artillery battery, the soldiers could simply summon air support by fighters or bombers, which roamed over the country’s airspace with near-impunity.

Those assumptions are still relevant in Afghanistan but, the Army insists, in few other operational theaters. The National Defense Strategy unveiled last January reorients U.S. military forces to prepare for competition with Russia and China, which, unlike Afghan insurgents, operate sophisticated air defenses that render close air support missions problematic.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
bobbymike said:
U.S. military forces to prepare for competition with Russia and China, which, unlike Afghan insurgents, operate sophisticated air defenses that render close air support missions problematic.
[/quote]

But. . .but, I was told the A-10 was invincible.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
2
https://www.army.mil/article/213383/can_you_shoot_me_now_auds_goes_undetected_with_new_ammunition

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.
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,021
Reaction score
9
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
marauder2048 said:
https://www.army.mil/article/213383/can_you_shoot_me_now_auds_goes_undetected_with_new_ammunition

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???:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2raYN68fpc
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
2
sferrin said:
"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
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
"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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
2
I was thinking you could easily proliferate the number of RWS mounts but XM914 is showing up as $250K a pop (in small quantities).
 

Attachments

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
"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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
jsport said:
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/

jsport said:
"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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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/

jsport said:
"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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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/

jsport said:
"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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW77hVqux10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OixSNQp0S_k
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
jsport said:
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?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
jsport said:
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?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,403
Reaction score
20
jsport said:
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?
 
Top