US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:
If Strix were such a great system it would have been picked up by more
nations than just Sweden and Switzerland (not sure that having two of the
biggest neutrals buy it is much of an endorsement!). Despite claims
otherwise, it will be subject to decoying with properly set up IR emitters.
And it only has a 7 klick range, which is not going to do much in the
interdiction role. If you try to fire it while your forces are in the close
fight, there is a significant fratricide risk.

I do not know how good Strix is compared with other equivalent systems
but that it has too short range for interdiction is as irrelevant that
noticing that a vehicle mounted TOW has to short range for
interdiction.

It seems obvious that the Strix at least will fit everywhere you have
mortar fire support. It enables the grunts calling for mortar fire
support to call for tank kills instead of mortar rounds that merely
scratches armour paint. The extra training needed ought to be trivial,
no new communications systems needed and no new logistics needed.

The fratricide risk ought to be of the same kind as for ordinary
mortar fire, dont call down fire on your friends. It seems reasonable
that it is a weapon that is good for supporting infantry defending
against armour, supporting wehicles finding armour at a reasonable
distance and that it is bad to call on during short range vehicle to
vehicle combat. (It would of course be very nifty with a IFF system
that can handle that but such a system could easily be more expensive
then the weapon proper. )

The IR detector and decoy arms race has probably no true winners, a
system used for decades must surely be upgraded several times? I have
absolutelly no idea if strix needs such an upgrade but it ought to
be easier to upgrade the detector or CPU or software of a
functioning system then starting from scratch.

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:
If Strix were such a great system it would have been picked up by more
nations than just Sweden and Switzerland (not sure that having two of
the
biggest neutrals buy it is much of an endorsement!). Despite claims
otherwise, it will be subject to decoying with properly set up IR
emitters.
And it only has a 7 klick range, which is not going to do much in the
interdiction role. If you try to fire it while your forces are in the
close
fight, there is a significant fratricide risk.

I do not know how good Strix is compared with other equivalent systems
but that it has too short range for interdiction is as irrelevant that
noticing that a vehicle mounted TOW has to short range for
interdiction.

Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any definition.
Don't take this as an outright condemnation of Strix, just its inability to
*replace* the attack helo.


It seems obvious that the Strix at least will fit everywhere you have
mortar fire support. It enables the grunts calling for mortar fire
support to call for tank kills instead of mortar rounds that merely
scratches armour paint. The extra training needed ought to be trivial,
no new communications systems needed and no new logistics needed.

OK, belay the "outright condemnation bit" for a second--if it is so good,
and has been around since 1994, why have only Sweden and Switzerland ordered
it?


The fratricide risk ought to be of the same kind as for ordinary
mortar fire, dont call down fire on your friends. It seems reasonable
that it is a weapon that is good for supporting infantry defending
against armour, supporting wehicles finding armour at a reasonable
distance and that it is bad to call on during short range vehicle to
vehicle combat. (It would of course be very nifty with a IFF system
that can handle that but such a system could easily be more expensive
then the weapon proper. )

True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin effort
years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired anti-tank
killer capability, having other systems that can do the job (and if it has
to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with assigned laser designator can
do the job with Copperhead).

Brooks


The IR detector and decoy arms race has probably no true winners, a
system used for decades must surely be upgraded several times? I have
absolutelly no idea if strix needs such an upgrade but it ought to
be easier to upgrade the detector or CPU or software of a
functioning system then starting from scratch.

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:
Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any definition.
Don't take this as an outright condemnation of Strix, just its inability to
*replace* the attack helo.

Oh, I obviously dident read enough of the thread. Replacing attack
helicopters with mortar rounds is of course an impossible idea even if
they are 100% accurate.

OK, belay the "outright condemnation bit" for a second--if it is so
good, and has been around since 1994, why have only Sweden and
Switzerland ordered it?

The cold war ended and everybody but USA has lowered their military
spending significantly? And the USA dont like to buy foreign high-tech
weapons if it can be avoided. Nobody bought our exelent self propelled
"Bandkanon" howitzer either and it could fire 14 155mm rounds in 45
seconds in 1966. Perhaps its like that howitzer, too expensive and
somewhat before its time? But I do not know what the strix rounds
cost.

True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired
anti-tank killer capability, having other systems that can do the
job (and if it has to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with
assigned laser designator can do the job with Copperhead).

I do not know why the Merlin project was cancelled, it was a
significantly smaller round, perhaps it was not possible to get it
all to fit in such a small package?
Good for you that you have plenty of other systems for killing armour.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:
Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should
be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for
the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any
definition.
Don't take this as an outright condemnation of Strix, just its inability
to
*replace* the attack helo.

Oh, I obviously dident read enough of the thread. Replacing attack
helicopters with mortar rounds is of course an impossible idea even if
they are 100% accurate.

OK, belay the "outright condemnation bit" for a second--if it is so
good, and has been around since 1994, why have only Sweden and
Switzerland ordered it?

The cold war ended and everybody but USA has lowered their military
spending significantly? And the USA dont like to buy foreign high-tech
weapons if it can be avoided. Nobody bought our exelent self propelled
"Bandkanon" howitzer either and it could fire 14 155mm rounds in 45
seconds in 1966. Perhaps its like that howitzer, too expensive and
somewhat before its time? But I do not know what the strix rounds
cost.

I'd say it was because in this case Sweden exhibited that trait that we
ourselves have had to avoid (sometimes not so successfully ourselves, I'd
admit) and bought a nifty weapon designed to help counter the anticipated
hordes of Soviet armored vehicles you might have faced if the balloon had
ever actually gone up--but they did it after the threat was largely
dissipated. Apparently the old "Cold War Mindset" when it came to weapons
procurement after the demise of the Warsaw Pact threat is not a purely
American disease... :-) The US had a number of deep strike artillery
anti-armor weapons in the development pipeline--most were subsequently
cancelled.

Brooks


True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired
anti-tank killer capability, having other systems that can do the
job (and if it has to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with
assigned laser designator can do the job with Copperhead).

I do not know why the Merlin project was cancelled, it was a
significantly smaller round, perhaps it was not possible to get it
all to fit in such a small package?
Good for you that you have plenty of other systems for killing armour.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

"Kevin Brooks" wrote


True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort
years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired anti-tank
killer capability, having other systems that can do the job (and if it has
to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with assigned laser designator can
do the job with Copperhead).

Do you have any idea how many Copperheads are still in inventory? Martin
built about 4-5000 rounds before production was cancelled and I understood
that substantial numbers were expended in Iraq-1.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote


True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort
years ago, and the US has yet to actively seek a mortar fired anti-tank
killer capability, having other systems that can do the job (and if it
has
to be done by arty, then a FIST or COLT with assigned laser designator
can
do the job with Copperhead).

Do you have any idea how many Copperheads are still in inventory?

Plenty. How many 1000 to 2000 tank armies are you planning on fighting? And
as Tom has pointed out, we apparently have at least some SADARM rounds as
well.

Martin
built about 4-5000 rounds before production was cancelled and I understood
that substantial numbers were expended in Iraq-1.

As I recall it, the number used during ODS was less than 400. Please correct
me if I am wrong--I read the actual number a year or so ago but can't recall
where. I did see where the 1st CAV fired a grand total of 30.

Brooks

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin effort
years ago,

This was not a technical failure, but the realisation that an 81mm bomb
didn't have the lethality needed, while scaling up to 120mm was a major
retooling and a large logistic overhead.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
True enough. But it appears the Brits cancelled their similar Merlin
effort
years ago,

This was not a technical failure, but the realisation that an 81mm bomb
didn't have the lethality needed, while scaling up to 120mm was a major
retooling and a large logistic overhead.

I suspect a revised view of the nature of the threat likely has something to
do with that decision.

Brooks


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
This was not a technical failure, but the realisation that an 81mm bomb
didn't have the lethality needed, while scaling up to 120mm was a major
retooling and a large logistic overhead.

I suspect a revised view of the nature of the threat likely has something to
do with that decision.

An infantry battalion is never going to complain about more anti-tank
(or anti-other AFV) assets. You've not got _that_ many MILAN (posts nor
missiles) and LAW is short-ranged and demanding of the firer (an oppo
shot off four LIFEX LAW90: he went in thinking 'this should be fun!' and
came out looking and feeling ill for days) so more assets and more range
in the battalion anti-armour plan would be nice. T-55s aren't scary to a
treadhead, but well-handled they can worry infantry quite a bit.

But, Merlin firstly lacked the lethality, and secondly distracted the
mortar platoon from their main job of firing HE, smoke and illum
missions. It was followed post-Options for Change, so the changed threat
wasn't the main axe (though I would hesitate to deny that added to the
stroke)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Kevin Brooks
Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any definition.

Oh no I didn't g, and, besides, I was explicitely speculating...

While I agree that Strix certainly isn't a deep strike AT asset
like AH's, I'd think that it can do some of the AT job of AH's
in CAS. A small country not being able to afford everything, may
have to do difficult choises between dissimilar systems. My
speculation was that if Strix is seen to improve the AT capability
of the Royal Army significantly, it may be one reason why they
haven't gotten (expensive) attack helos.

Besides, putting Strix and AH's in the same category is rather
modest compared to that some Finnish top brass - quite seriously -
drew a parallel between anti-personnel mines and AH's a few years
ago. (The logic being that if the AP mines have to be abandonded due
to international agreements, AT minefields will be too easy to clear,
and thus AH's are necessary to maintain the AT capability).