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.

gatnerd said...

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.

Since practically all the vehicles in the US military these days are at least an MRAP, your point is ridiculous and still makes no sense. The US need to stick themselves with 3rd rate military hardware, and still think a .50 BMG on a pintle mount is still a viable option, which is why projects like this rocket crop up every few years.

Well if the cost isn't the issue, then why drag this rocket pod around when you can just let the troops fire a Javelin at whatever the offending target it?

gatnerd said...

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.

EIMOS Expal Integrated Mortar System for wheeled vehicle

500kg system that can be integrated into any MRAP with a crew of 2 or 3. Range of 6,900 metres and 20 second to fire the first bomb after receiving coordinates. Any normal army would have 8 mortars in a platoon at battalion level. Even the US has them. Why not upgrade their existing assets and use those instead?  And lets talk about effect. Airburst 81 mm mortar bombs will wreck any enemy in the open or behind cover. Only overhead protection will save them. Imagine Wanat with the troops on the ground being able to call in 81 mm airburst on 20 second notice? Mortars are the most devastating ground weapon of the last 100 years. A huge percentage of casualties in every war since 1914 can be credited to mortars. 

81 mm? Hold my hummus.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/spear-mk2-mortar-system/

120 mm mortar, 200 kg with manual reloading, Humvee-friendly.

renatohm said...

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/spear-mk2-mortar-system/

120 mm mortar, 200 kg with manual reloading, Humvee-friendly.

Also a range of about 6,500 metres and a soft recoil system which needs to be significantly more complex for the same accuracy. Also not really needed for the sort of role the rocket is intended for. The long range 120s with the mechanically deployed base plates I posted above are much longer ranged, if slower to fire and to redeploy.

They do remind me of an idea doing the rounds in the 80s or so. A mechanical base plate attached to the back of an APC like the M113 with 4 extra long 120 mm tubes. It could get off 12 to 16 rounds in about 15 seconds with the loaders standing on the roof of the APC. Not practical in an NBC environment, which I think is why it went nowhere.

gatnerd said...

By comparison, the APKWS MLRS weighs ~750lbs loaded with 23rds, and can be transported by 1x small vehicle that fits on a helicopter. And to fire, it requires only a gunner and a laser pointer man. 

How about something half the cost that can just be driven up to blast away direct and can still fire indirect?

"81 mm? Hold my hummus.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/spear-mk2-mortar-system/

120 mm mortar, 200 kg with manual reloading, Humvee-friendly."

Now that, that is fucking cool. 

The US should definitely be snagging those, and that does seem like a more versatile system then the Mini MLRS. 

Probably the ideal setup would be to have the SPEAR as the dedicated 'fire support' vehicle for the platoon, and then have the Fletcher 4 shot APKWS mounted on regular troop transport vehicles.