CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
- Apr 21, 2009
- Reaction score
Test a success waiting for details
so was I"new XM1113 rocket-boosted shell and a longer howitzer 58 caliber cannon increases range from 38km to 70km+."
Apparently the ancient G6 is still king. And they didn't even have to use a rocket-boosted shell.
"Rheinmetall attained a distance of 76km using a G6 howitzer with a 52-calibre gun. This is said to be the longest range ever achieved with a conventional 155mm artillery round."
(I was stoked the article above was going to show the mythical 1000-mile gun.)
No way man. We're WAY ahead of everybody else in hypersonics. Clearly a near-production vehicle. /sarcthese are not new missiles are they ? They are based on BMD target missiles which never ended production yea?
Tweet containing a couple more.
I'm speculating, but the weapon plus detachable wheel carriages plus tractor probably equals one platform. 8 crew would only be 1 more than an M109, and I'm assuming the ammo for this thing is a bit larger, so it's not outside the ballpark. I certainly would assume they have separate ammo vehicles planned.What does "four platforms per battery" mean? Does it refer to its support vehicles or other cannons? And then I wonder how one could load shells into the cannon? I suppose there is another truck with a semi-trailer carrying shells and charges, similar to the M992 of the M109 howitzer. And that the Oshkosh M1070 truck is uncoupled from the trailer when the cannon is in use, to facilitate its loading.
Big bucks though better not be a Sanders presidency.Research and development spending on hypersonics will nearly double in ‘21, and it will triple for lasers, as the service rushes to deploy combat-ready prototypes.breakingdefense.com
"A whole lot more" is right. SM-6 is in the $5 million ballpark. ATACMS is just under $1 million, and PrSM is supposed to be cheaper than that. Granted, adding a booster will add some expense, but not that much. (My choice might be the VL ASROC booster, which is big and apparently pretty cheap.)
The Navy has historically had trouble filling all its VLS cells, not the other way around. I really doubt that has fundamentally changed. Expensive missiles like SM-6 will likely remain fairly low-density assets, with a significant need remaining for low-cost supplements.How do you value the SM-6? Why would it be just the cost of the missile? Why wouldn't it be the fact that it can meet multiple mission needs and provides the flexibility given VLS real estate comes at a premium? I think a direct for direct swap may be more justifiable when we have those optionally/unmanned large vehicles/missile carriers that can provide volume fires. That said, a maritime strike extended range PrSM probably won't become a reality till the late 2020's/early 2030's so the Navy can always look at its options then.