• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Long Range Precision Fires

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
"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.)
so was I
155mm developments are about 2 decades of just catching up.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
these are not new missiles are they ? They are based on BMD target missiles which never ended production yea?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
these are not new missiles are they ? They are based on BMD target missiles which never ended production yea?
No way man. We're WAY ahead of everybody else in hypersonics. Clearly a near-production vehicle. /sarc

(Probably sacrificed a target vehicle meant for THAAD or SM-3 for this political test. And I doubt anybody is fooled.)
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,710
Reaction score
753

The task force, likely to be based on islands east of the Philippines and Taiwan, would be equipped to hit land and sea-based targets with long-range precision weapons, such as hypersonic missiles, in a bid to possibly clear the way for Navy vessels in the event of a conflict, Bloomberg said.
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
29

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
1,235
The first words that popped into my head upon looking at the model were "Gerald Bull."
It also reminded me a bit of a certain WWII German very heavy artillery piece...
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
29
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
The modified M-109s look interesting.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
57
Website
www.quora.com
1582404251216.png



"Norway's Nammo has unveiled a potentially revolutionary concept for an air-breathing, ramjet-powered, pseudo-missile that any standard 155mm howitzer can fire at targets more than 60 miles away. The U.S. Army has already expressed an interest in just such a projectile, which could also end up in service with the U.S. Marine Corps, and the round might finally offer a way for the U.S. Navy to make use of the cannons on its new, stealthy Zumwalt-class destroyers.
The defense contractor revealed a full-size mockup of the design, which it is simply calling the 155mm Solid Fuel Ramjet at present, at the biennial Eurosatory arms expo in the French capital Paris, which began on June 11, 2018. The firm expects to begin live-fire testing of the projectile in 2019 or 2020 and hopes to have the new ammunition in production and in operational service with a military by between 2023 and 2024."

Anyone have the size dimensions for this 1000 mile cannon?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
161
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.
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.

I doubt we'll see much in the way of dimensions, unless someone leaks or blathers on Twitter, before they at least have a functional prototype firing.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Diet ATACMS. It seems like a very clear family resemblance in the tail area especially.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
Slap a Mk72 on it and jam it in a Mk41 VLS. (Actually you could almost certainly stick a Harpoon booster on it and stick in in those canisters as well.)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
Doesn't the SM-6 IB essentially get you that and perhaps more given that you are unlikely to load more than one PrSM per cell?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
Doesn't the SM-6 IB essentially get you that and perhaps more given that you are unlikely to load more than one PrSM per cell?
Probably costs a whole lot more.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
I think it will look attractive once they develop the multi domain capability and extend the range. Until then, the Navy will probably prefer the longer range and multi-mission nature of the SM-6 family. Once the baseline PrsM begins reaching 700-900 km, and gets the ability to strike ships and other moving targets I'm sure the Navy will have a look.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Doesn't the SM-6 IB essentially get you that and perhaps more given that you are unlikely to load more than one PrSM per cell?
Probably costs a whole lot more.
"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.)

Now, the anti-ship PrSM might be a fair bit pricier than the baseline version, since it needs a seeker of some sort, but ieven that should still be several times less expensive than an SM-6.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
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.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
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.
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.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
How can PrSM be a low cost supplement when the SM-6 is a multi-mission/purpose missile? The SM-6 allows them to fill those VL cells with a system that can accomplish more than one mission and intercept more than on type of target. I think that is quite cost effective if one looks at the larger picture of offense and defense. I do agree a $1.5-2 MM (that'll probably be what a multi-domain ER variant of the PrSM will cost) is a good bet if you have empty VLS that you can't afford to fill or when you have the large displacement unmanned vessels that will come in at a lower price point. Unless it turns out to be quite superior in an anti-ship role, I don't see the Navy being interested against land threats unless we at least double the baseline range (probably more).
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
1,235
The problem boils down to a 'pennywise, pound foolish' approach which means missiles will remain expensive because the Navy doesn't buy near enough of them for their ships, never mind ammunition reserves.
 
Top