"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...
snip


There's a fair amount of activity in course-correcting artillery rounds.
The
cheapest is so-called "1D", range-only correction. A smart fuze deploys
an
airbrake after so many revolutions of the round. For some of them, the
number of revolutions is uplinked to the round after it leaves the
muzzle,
based on muzzle velocity measurements. The 1-D fuzes reduce the range
part
of the error ellipse which is the largest part of total error. There are
also "1.5D" and "2D" correcting shells in development that can correct
cross-range errors as well.

All of these are "non-smart" in that there is no terminal target sensing
but
like GMLRS, the decrease in CEP will increase lethality against hard
targets. Based on the standard equations for SSKP against hard targets
using
blast overpressure as the kill mechanism, lethality goes up as CEP^2.
I'm
not sure how applicable that model is since blast normally won't kill
armor
but it's an indicator.

They are worthless against armor unless you acheive a direct hit; even a
direct strike by a DPICM round against a MBT is unlikely to give you a
kill.
You have to have either a terminally guided round such as Copperhead or a
terminally guided submunition like SADARM to kill tanks. Even Excalibur,
except in its SADARM version, which is now moot, is not a tank killer with
its reported 10 meter CEP (against a stationary MBT, that would require
what, a minimum of maybe eight to twelve rounds to give you a reasonable
assurance of hitting it?). Then there is the sensor-to-shooter time lag to
overcome against a moving target, which necessitates the use of a
terminally
guided munition.

The SSKP model I was refering to was for nuclear weapons against missile
silos, rather a different case. If what you say is true, why GMLRS and CC
artillery rounds?