This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 12-Aug by SiverSurfeR
Latest 12-Aug by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 11-Aug by JPeelen
Latest 10-Aug by autogun
Latest 10-Aug by schnuersi
Latest 5-Aug by mpopenker
Latest 3-Aug by nincomp
Latest 3-Aug by dudutin
Latest 1-Aug by stancrist
Latest 31-Jul by gatnerd
Latest 27-Jul by Guardsman26
Latest 9-May by taschoene
Latest 26-Jul by Refleks
poliorcetes said...I agree with you about costs of using 4th gen multirrole for CAS in AA low risk environments such as Astan. Even American pockets aren't unlimited, and burning hours of the inherited Cold War fleet in that is absurd. IF we NATO need to intervene in some place, it would be needed to address the CAS resources properly and select more suited systems that those that we are using now. However, a reduced cost CAS resource offer an unvaluable asset: high ground
Well a significant chunk of the US CAS in Afghanistan was done by B1Bs, so the idea of saving money doesn't really feature.
Rather than dreaming up even more obscure ways of letting troops patrolling on foot in the middle of nowhere get support. Stick with drones and Super Tucanos which will cover far more patrols more cheaply than a bunch of trucks which need crews and the fairly limited potential of these rockets.
I believe I posited before that an IFV with an interchangeable mount allowing the use of guided 70mm rockets and ATGMs in whatever mission configuration was deemed appropriate would be a great support platform for the troops.
Imagine Bradleys in Iraq being able to let of 23 rockets without reloading instead of just two missiles.
Heck, for real fun, make the mount interchangable with a MANPADS missile pack too, potentially every infantry platoon would have a missile for every occasion.
But burning the Cold war fleet is unsustainable, even for USA. It's going to be worse if CAS is finally conducted by F-35. Go figure...
And you are excluding options needlessly. Drones are cheap (although their guided munitions AREN'T cheap), and COIN birds could offer dozens of time over the terrain that teens are offering, both because costs per hour and persistence. It would be a very serious deterrence for direct engagement with our troops.
But there are a good number of possibilities in which UGVs can offer significant advantages. For the very beginning of airmobile patrols, to urban combat, perimeter defense, etc. Since troops are going to go on foot in the next war, upgrading their fire capability without the logistic footprint and limitations of helicopter-portable manned ground vehicles.
UAV are going to be critical in all future operations. But UGVs are going to gain importance because in an NH 90 you can carry 3-4 armed themis, land them among paratroopers and offer them flexible and powerful fire capabilities
Some times I think about UGV comparing them with a tripod-mounted weapon that can move on itself and fire behind corners, or even fire without human operators in some circumstances. An APKWS module could offer huge advantages in certain scenarios, and an UGV is the smallest vehicle that can make them mobile. Indeed, themis can be carried by a wheeled vehicle up to 60 kph if I recall it correctly. In certain patrol scenarios such UGVs could add decissive firepower
This last issue is the most substantial. The M327 requires 2x vehicles to employ. 1 vehicle tows the 1,283lb Mortar. Another vehicle is needed to tow the 30 round ammo carriage, which is another ~1300lbs. And these vehicles + mortar cannot be transported by helicopter, only by a V22 Osprey.
To fire, the mortar requires a crew of 4 gunners.
If only the US was advanced as Spain.
Whoever these guys are. Indonesia I think.
An actual fire support system that can deliver smoke, mines, plaster area threats and provide precision support with guided munitions would see a far logical path than a rocket based system that is unusable without a designator.
"Rather than dreaming up even more obscure ways of letting troops patrolling on foot in the middle of nowhere get support. Stick with drones and Super Tucanos which will cover far more patrols more cheaply than a bunch of trucks which need crews and the fairly limited potential of these rockets."
I'm fully on board Drones and Super Tucanos as close air support, and I think its criminal that we're using fancy jets for this application.
At the same time, drones and planes can't be everywhere; both fuel limitations, numbers of pilots, and in the case of an advanced enemy, jamming / AA fire.
So its important to have infantry, and especially small infantry units, have some sort of Organic, 'baked in' fire support on the ground.
Ideally, that fire support should be Artillery, Large mortars, small mortars, IFV's, etc. But thats not always the case either, especially for small untis far afield, or where terrain is especially dispersed and remote like Afghanistan. Or during the opening phases of an expeditionary war.
That's why I really like the Fletcher and Mini MLRS APKWS. Its small, its light, its easy to use, it can be mounted onto any vehicle, and its capable of providing effective close support out to 5km.
In the case of Fletcher, every other vehicle can have one mounted. Ie Vehicle 1 has a Fletcher + 50bmg, Vehicle 2 has a 40mm AGL + .338lwmg.
In the case of emergency close support, all thats needed is getting a single soldier to get to one of the Fletcher trucks, point it in the right direction, and fire. Wheruppon it will pick up the infatryies IR laser and hit the target.
There's no need to wait for planes to arrive, or ask for authorization from higher ups to bring in the artillery.
gatnerd said...Ideally, that fire support should be Artillery, Large mortars, small mortars, IFV's, etc. But thats not always the case either, especially for small untis far afield, or where terrain is especially dispersed and remote like Afghanistan. Or during the opening phases of an expeditionary war.
So a truck with half a million dollars in rockets stuck to it's roof is cost effective, but a mortar carrier that price is not? Mortars also works around hills and urban locations, which is something these rockets will be extremely limited at.
Mortars is not a great option against a peer/near peer opponent. Radars can easily detect the mortar location and pass the coordinates to enemy artillery for annihilating fire.
"So a truck with half a million dollars in rockets stuck to it's roof is cost effective, but a mortar carrier that price is not? Mortars also works around hills and urban locations, which is something these rockets will be extremely limited at."
I never argued that its the cheaper option, or that the mortar is cost prohibitive.
Earlier I did what I think was a pretty fair comparison of the Towed Mortar vs APKWS.
I'd definitely like to see more towed mortars.
But as I pointed out, the towed mortars come with a massive weight increase over APKWS, and require either a dedicated mortar vehicle, or must be towed by two separate vehicles. And it also requires a mortar team to operate.
The Fletcher is 130lbs loaded and can be bolted onto any vehicle that can mount a .50 cal. As such, it can be a standardized, default weapon on vehicles in the same way that a .50/40mm is currently.
First: is highly improbable that NATO countries are going to fight against a peer oponent. Nuclear umbrella and all that.
Second, an totally automated mortar mounted on a UGV could fire-and-run with a much lesser footprint that the actual automated mortar systems. Indeed it could fire several shoots and change its position all the time. Giving its small height and volume, it could be quite difficult to detect and to be engaged
Third: if destroyed, it is just materialschlacht
kostas3000 said...Mortars is not a great option against a peer/near peer opponent. Radars can easily detect the mortar location and pass the coordinates to enemy artillery for annihilating fire.
None of this is about peer enemies, its about shooting the locals with a stupidly expensive rocket during the armed occupation of their country.