US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

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

"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?

"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

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

Not to make them effective armor killers, that's for sure (at least in the
absence of having something like SADARM attached to them). They do reduce
the number of rounds required to acheive a suppression or destruction effect
on other targets.

Brooks

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 wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote

I think GMLRS is headed toward a unitary round more than smart subs.
ATACSM BAT may still show up, though.

I believe you are correct, but I am not sure that the use of a a smart
submunition warhead is dead yet. The interest in being able to engage
transient targets and reduce the sensor-to-shooter cycle time would
seem to point to a place for such a system.

OH, I agree that there will be such weapons in inventory,. But I'm not sure
there is funding to give every system this option.

It seems to me that the planned off-the-shelf 155mm smart submunition round,
a possible Excaliber extended-range smart submunition round, and ATACMS-BAT
will probably be sufficiently complementary that they don't also need an
MLRS smart submunition round.



The Army has also just issued a contract (now under protest) for
manufacture of a 120mm Precision-Guided Mortar Projectile, and is
soliciting for an off-the-shelf round to complement the depleted
SADARM stocks.

The 120mm projectile is not going to be of much use in the deep
attack--not enough leg on it. In the close battle, the danger close
range would have to be a concern; lobbing autonomous IR or MMWR
guided munitions over the FLOT whre your own Brads and Abrams are
operating could be problematic. Is the new system going to use
autonomous targeting, or laser designation?

Laser, undoubtedly for the reason you suggest. Even live gunners have a
hard enough time telling an LAV and a BTR (for example).

I think the main purpose here is to give the Striker battalions a bit more
antitank and point hard-target firepower within their own zone of influence.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote

I think GMLRS is headed toward a unitary round more than smart subs.
ATACSM BAT may still show up, though.

I believe you are correct, but I am not sure that the use of a a smart
submunition warhead is dead yet. The interest in being able to engage
transient targets and reduce the sensor-to-shooter cycle time would
seem to point to a place for such a system.

OH, I agree that there will be such weapons in inventory,. But I'm not
sure
there is funding to give every system this option.

It seems to me that the planned off-the-shelf 155mm smart submunition
round,
a possible Excaliber extended-range smart submunition round, and
ATACMS-BAT
will probably be sufficiently complementary that they don't also need an
MLRS smart submunition round.

True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's (say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.




The Army has also just issued a contract (now under protest) for
manufacture of a 120mm Precision-Guided Mortar Projectile, and is
soliciting for an off-the-shelf round to complement the depleted
SADARM stocks.

The 120mm projectile is not going to be of much use in the deep
attack--not enough leg on it. In the close battle, the danger close
range would have to be a concern; lobbing autonomous IR or MMWR
guided munitions over the FLOT whre your own Brads and Abrams are
operating could be problematic. Is the new system going to use
autonomous targeting, or laser designation?

Laser, undoubtedly for the reason you suggest. Even live gunners have a
hard enough time telling an LAV and a BTR (for example).

I think the main purpose here is to give the Striker battalions a bit more
antitank and point hard-target firepower within their own zone of
influence.

OK, that would make sense (too bad the Army has yet to pick up the turret
mounted, breech loading 120mm mortar offered by one manufacturer (can't
recall which) that is already in service with the Saudi NG on their own
wheeled armored vehicles). I don't see it being of tremendous value to the
heavy units (given that your mortars will generally be a couple klicks or
more rearward of their supported elements, and the max range of the AT
systems available on both the Brad and Abrams, most of what the 120mm could
engage would already be in range of your primary AT systems in short order).

Brooks



--
Tom Schoene

True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's (say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.



Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ron" wrote in message
...
True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when
compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS
when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's
(say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that
results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter
into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you
are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.



Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am scratching
my head...

Brooks



Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Ron wrote:

True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's (say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.



Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

Kevin's in no danger of that as yet. He'd have to string a bunch of obscure
acronyms together without any breaks and then throw in a few even more obscure
(to all but him) pithy phrases that he'd made up, in a sentence that's a very
long paragraph in length. Oh, and the syntax is too conventional, he needs to
rearrange the order and make a few verbs into nouns (or vice versa). The above
is entirely too readable to qualify as Plummer-speak -- not only is Kevin's
thesis identified in the first sentence, but when you get to the end of the
paragraph you can still remember what the whole thing was about ;-)

Guy