Extended-range precision artillery hits targets from 36 kilometers

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
872
Reaction score
1
Extended-range precision artillery hits targets from 36 kilometers PARIS, June 11, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Marine Corps successfully fired two Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) Excalibur 155mm precision-guided artillery projectiles from a range of 36 kilometers (22.3 statute miles) in theater. These shots mark the longest distance the Excalibur round has been fired in combat since its fielding in 2007.
"It is incredible to think about how this capability has evolved with its use over time, and these shots are evidence of that," said Lt. Col. Mike Milner, U.S. Army Excalibur product manager. "We are continually improving Excalibur's use in theater."
With more than 500 rounds fired in theater to date, Excalibur is the revolutionary family of precision projectiles for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps artillery. The Marines have significantly increased the operational use of Excalibur in the last year, firing as many as 32 rounds in one week. By integrating Excalibur into close-combat formations, U.S. forces avoid collateral damage even when warfighters are in close proximity to the target.
"Having true precision artillery that can defeat the targets – and from such a great distance – gives our warfighters the ability to engage these targets that would otherwise be out of reach," said Michelle Lohmeier, vice president of Land Combat Systems at Raytheon Missile Systems. "Raytheon developed and fielded the world's first extended-range GPS-guided artillery, and we are proud of the unprecedented precision capability Excalibur gives our warfighters."
About Excalibur
Successfully fielded in 2007, the Excalibur 155mm precision-guided, extended-range projectile is the revolutionary artillery round used in theater today by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Using GPS precision guidance technology, Excalibur provides accurate, first round, fire-for-effect capability in an urban setting. Excalibur is considered a true precision weapon, impacting at a radial miss distance of six meters from the target.


http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2108
 

acorning

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Why bother? GMLRS is much better and goes a lot further hence you need to carry less rounds to ensure having a firing unit in range. Of course Raytheon don't make MLRS hence their puffery. Why regurgitate meja spin?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
3
Artillery tends to be a better bet when you are in mountains. Behind crest effects are more effective because most rockets use low trajectories to achieve range. Artillery is inherently more accurate and its effects more easily scaleable - both important considerations when engaged in COIN warfare where you want to minimise civilian casualties as much as possible. It is also inherently cheaper than most guided artillery rockets.
 

Sea Skimmer

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
GMLRS has a vertical impact mode specifically to deal with mountains and urban areas. The earlier versions didn't have this, but it was added as a software mode some years ago after early use in Afghanistan. Its an aeroballistic missile so trajectory is highly variable otherwise. Innate accuracy means very little when comparing two different weapons guided by similar GPS technology, GMLRS has proven very highly accurate in combat, demonstrated in endless videos online. Both seem to be more then accurate enough to attack point targets, maybe even tanks with decent reliability. Though target locating error becomes a factor in this.
GMLRS weighs around 700lb with a 200lb warhead, Excalibur is around 100lb with 24lb of explosive inside, though the whole case is part of the warhead. The large blast of GMLRS simply isn't that purposeful or desirable for many targets. Excalibur has about half the per unit cost, 52,000 dollars vs about 109,000 dollars for the latest production batches. If you want to blow up large buildings or bridges GMLRS will be more cost effective and generally destructive, if you need to hit lots of point targets Excalibur is clearly superior. Plenty of missions exist for both weapons.
GMLRS is better if you don't have a 100% totally precise target location, that target locating error, which is often the case even with laser rangefinders, but cannot allow 155mm unguided shells to impact across a several hundred meter oval. On the other hand even if you can fire unguided 155mm, they cost around a thousand dollars a shell without considering powder or gun tube life or transport costs so that actually can add up pretty quickly.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
3
Still doesn't have the scalability of artillery. You can use 1 tube, 2 tubes, 3 tubes, etc. up and down the scale, depending on the effect you want. GMLRS has a minimum 200lb warhead. Both types of weapons have their uses but rockets will not displace artillery.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a484445.pdf
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
14
Surprised nobody posted one of the Excalibur test videos. I wonder if they will ever release a comparable video of the Orbital-ATK PGK alternative. It costs much less and like JDAM is an attachment to standard munitions. It doesn’t have the same precision or the vertical descent profile but might be good enough for most applications and seems to be enjoying continued sales ( http://www.asdnews.com/news-67600/Artillery_Precision_Guidance_Kits_Contract.htm )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ukz5jhXdY

PGK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebzh12PR0-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqINp_ydWwU
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
14
PGK being used in training.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNgslxFyOv0
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
14
Came across this video of the OTO Melara guided 76mm shell. Apparently it is a beam rider vs being GPS guided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61YnsQ1v0mw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnrA4VfjgPI
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,018
Reaction score
6
fredymac said:
Came across this video of the OTO Melara guided 76mm shell. Apparently it is a beam rider vs being GPS guided.
That's because it's designed to engage high-speed moving targets, mainly anti-ship missiles. It's not really in the same class as Excalibur or PGK.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
14
TomS said:
fredymac said:
Came across this video of the OTO Melara guided 76mm shell. Apparently it is a beam rider vs being GPS guided.
That's because it's designed to engage high-speed moving targets, mainly anti-ship missiles. It's not really in the same class as Excalibur or PGK.
I was thinking there was a single version which used GPS guidance but I guess there are two different types. I can't find any actual test video for the GPS version.

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

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,018
Reaction score
6
Yeah, DART and Vulcano are really different beasts.

Vulcano 76mm is derived from the larger Vulcano 127mm bombardment shell and comes in guided and non-guided versions.

DART is basically the logical conclusion of the Italian Navy using 76mm as a CIWS; it crosses over with missile-based anti-missile systems like RAM.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,396
Reaction score
16
Combined with the Super Rapido, I wonder how effective it would be compared to a Phalanx or Goalkeeper. Seems more versatile (but a much larger footprint obviously).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihgvZRM7PwU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCd_X7lh_AQ
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,018
Reaction score
6
Honestly, without access to a lot of sensitive test data, there's really no way to know.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
5
TomS said:
Honestly, without access to a lot of sensitive test data, there's really no way to know.
The concept is better. That is if it can defeat the target (see sensitive test data). Intercepting the incoming missle further away theoritically gives you a chance to re-engage if your intercept is unsuccessful. The further away the interception the more likely the missile or parts of it won't hit your ship and cause damage which could be mission critical. Also using the 76mm as an ASMD capability is more deck space/volume/mass/cost efficient that having seperate systems for multiple roles. The 76MM is also an effective ASuW, AAW and NGS weapon. Those Horizon class DDGs with three OTO guns would be very lethal in a littoral knife fight with FACs and the like. Compared to say a German DDG with one 76mm and two RAM launchers.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
14
Excalibur upgrade for shaped trajectory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDtd8ajSvI
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
fredymac said:
Excalibur upgrade for shaped trajectory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDtd8ajSvI
Raytheon has an opportunity to market EST as part of the 1000mile gun project as missiles should have a significantly lesser role, primarily against particular missile threats, at these ranges.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
1
jsport said:
Raytheon has an opportunity to market EST as part of the 1000mile gun project as missiles should have a significantly lesser role, primarily against particular missile threats, at these ranges.
There is the little problem of achieving that 1000 mile range however. I don't see it happening anytime soon, especially when you consider the lack of news regarding railguns.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
jsport said:
Raytheon has an opportunity to market EST as part of the 1000mile gun project as missiles should have a significantly lesser role, primarily against particular missile threats, at these ranges.
There is the little problem of achieving that 1000 mile range however. I don't see it happening anytime soon, especially when you consider the lack of news regarding railguns.
not my falt ur not paying attention.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
W/o a 1000mile gun no allied victory

https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/how-does-the-next-great-power-conflict-play-out-lessons-from-a-wargame/

"Observations and Lessons Learned
The post-conflict after action review was informative and left the students with much to ponder. Before listing just a few of the lessons learned, it is important to note that they are the result of only two days of game play. Moreover, these games were designed to help the students think about future conflicts and operational art, and not for serious analytical work. Still, there were several observations that may point the services and Joint Staff toward areas that require more serious analysis.

The high rate of loss in modern conventional combat challenged student paradigms ingrained by nearly two decades of counter-insurgency operations. In just the first week of the war, U.S. forces and their allies suffered over 150,000 losses (World War I levels of attrition) from the fighting in Poland, Korea, and Taiwan. For students, who have spent their entire military lives viewing the loss of a squad or a platoon as a military catastrophe, this led to a lot of discussion about what it would take to lead and inspire a force that is burning through multiple brigades a day, as well as a lengthy discussion on how long such combat intensity could be sustained.

Because of these huge battlefield losses and how long it would take to get National Guard and Reserves into the fight, the decision was made to strip these forces of most of their trained personnel and use their troops as replacements for battered active units.


To ease the students into the complexity of this wargame, logistics was hugely simplified. (likely logistics would be stifled by the huge missile forces of the eastern powers)Still, much of the post-game discussion focused on the impossibility of the U.S. military’s current infrastructure to support even half the forces in theater or to maintain the intensity of combat implied by the wargame as necessary to achieve victory.
Airpower, the few times it was available, was a decisive advantage on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the planes rarely showed up to assist the ground war, as they prioritized winning dominance of their own domain over any other task. Only when the Air Force had completed a multi-week campaign to take down the enemy’s Integrated Air Defense System( IADS) and win the air-battle, were they willing to assist the ground battle. In the Pacific, the unwillingness to risk carriers within the 900-mile range of Chinese DF-21s and 26s made them close to useless, unless they could operate under a land-based air defense umbrella. (w/o a 1000mile gun, no chance as SEAD eats Air forces and F-35 will never accomplish Close Air Support as it was never intended to by a biased AF)

Neither America nor its allies had any adequate response to the use of chemical weapons by the enemy, short of requesting nuclear release
. It is worth noting that every battle headed rapidly toward total war, as both sides commanders sought to escape restraints on what weapons they could employ within a theater. Every time a theater commander met with a military setback they requested authority to employ nuclear weapons

Neither U.S. forces nor allied forces had an answer to counter the overpowering impact of huge enemy fire complexes, which accounted for most American and allied losses. (w/o massive counter-fire from 1000mile gun no chance of survival of US forces)

Cyber advantages always proved fleeting. Moreover, any cyberattack launched on its own was close to useless. On the other hand, targeted cyber attacks combined with maneuver forces always proved to be a deadly combination.

When NATO is all-in, it can put a huge effective force in the field. But it is important to remember that NATO was only all-in because the students took a huge amount of their investment budget and applied it to directed diplomacy, aimed at rebuilding frayed alliances. Still, the Russian occupation of Ukraine, the Baltics, and Belarus did a lot to focus the attention of NATO allies on the looming threat.

In Korea, the allies must hold for approximately 10 days before the North Korean logistics system collapses. It’s important to note, however, that the fighting remains brutal even after North Korea’s logistics system collapses. Moreover, the restrictive terrain and density of forces leads to particularly intense combat."
 
Top