Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS
Been doubting the future of 155mm tube artillery for quite some time now. Think that the 120mm mortar on the one end, and MLRS on the other will take a considerable bite out of the 155's mission. Couple of thoughts below on how Netfires fits in:
M777 weight: 4400kg
Average Crew: 600kg
Typical pallet (45 shells, 60 MACS): about 2100kg (estimation)
Weight for one hour of sustained firing (@ 3 rounds/minute = 4 pallets): about 13500kg
Costs: USD3M for the M777, USD65k for a pallet of dumb ammo, USD80k for one Excalibur, USD260k for one hour of sustained dumb fire, or USD14M+ for one hour of Excalibur sustained fire (not including deployment and crew)
2D Mobility: MTVR
3D Mobility out: two CH-47 (gun, crew, ammo for one sustained hour)
3D Mobility back: one CH-47 hauling back gun and crew
Capabilities: traditional big boom shrapnel, cluster container, precision attack
Netfires CLU empty: 650kg
Netfires missile: 53kg
Loaded CLU: about 1450kg
Weight for one hour of firing (@ 3 rounds/minute = 12 CLU): about 17500kg
Costs: hard to say - Javelin USD75k, Hellfire USD60k, Spike USD5k, PAM shouldn't be more than USD20k per. CLU say USD350k per, USD4.2M for one hour sustained fire (not including deployment).
2D Mobility: MTVR with loader crane
3D Mobility out: three CH-47 (possibly with at small all-terrain forklift) to deploy the CLUs (CLUs for one sustained hour of firing); or six UH-60 with CLUs as ext load
3D Mobility back: one UH-60 with at least two guys to collect electronics packages
Capabilities: precision attack
Problem: sabotage, if unattended (same as with FCS' UGS)
That translates into:
# Role for 120mm Mortar: sustained (mostly suppressive) "dumb" big boom area shrapnel fire, short/medium range; precision mortar rounds will have a hard stand against PAM costwise, as with Excalibur only interesting if used sparingly
# Role for M777: sustained (mostly suppressive) "dumb" big boom area-shrapnelling, medium range, flexibly deployed; Excalibur cost effective only if not used more than ten times per hour or so (per battery)
# Role for Netfires: selective fire, precision attack, medium/long range, preferably road-deployed, optional unattended operation if airliftered to an unaccessible spot
# Role for MLRS++: massed technical targets, area targets, salvo assault, long range
Comments?
Hmmm, responsive, but max range ?
Touché !
The 120 teams are quick and get to 6 clicks... The 155 to 24 clicks, albeit slower :)
You can Run but you'll only die tired !
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayonetBrant
don't forget that 120mm mortars live at the BN level, which makes one of their key attributes "responsiveness". It can take a while to get 155mm rounds - or anything else - fired as an immediate suppression mission. But the S3 can grab the mike and get mortar rounds in flight inside of 2 minutes.
Hate to be dense but I don't understand what this means:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
...The negative is that 120's have limited self sustainmant ability compared to an arty battery.
Do you mean in logistic support?
They do; the 120 requires transport and support vehicles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
Did I not just get done telling you to read what mean and not what I write? :confused:
Yes I mean logistic support, especially ammo resupply. Of course I was an 81mm mortar man and the 120 is vehicle based so they may have a more robust logistical support.
and they are in the 120 Platoon itself and in the HHC Support Platoon. Poor Rifle Companies don't have that luxury -- though they did when we had the Mule (this one LINK and not this one LINK). Those put the M-Gator to shame.
Mine's bigger than yours...
Fun times in River City...
I think your concerns are valid but I also think
that a new weapon with those capabilities has promise to do more than may be readily apparent at first glance. ;)
Thus I'm inclined to welcome the weapon while worrying about the micromanagement probabilities. :rolleyes:
However, not too much worry. Given our current over-officered Army, that micromanagement will occur in peacetime regardless -- you have too many smart guys with authority sitting around with too little to do. It will also occur in low intensity conflict like Iraq and Afghanistan * for the same reason but it will not be a problem in major conflict because the officer:enlisted ratio will change radically and everyone will be too busy to meddle. That's when Netfires will be valuable. Think of it as the F-22 for ground forces... :D
* With an apology to all who've been engaged in a heavy firefight in either place. When the bullets are cracking overhead or hitting your cover and you're getting splattered with body parts, there is no low intensity to it...
Because; (1) the Infantry commander owns the
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gringo Malandro
Why the 120mm when you have 105mm howitzers? Longer range, more shell-fuse combinations, more lethality, and you can tow with a HMMWV. If you need a few dumb booms to get somebody's attention you have 60's and 81's. Seems like reinventing the wheel.
120s which are (2) more accurate within their effective range and (3) have a far larger bursting radius / do more damage than the 105. Not to mention that in a dire emergency (4) the 120 can be hand moved and (5) can easily be deployed in a lighter and more mobile vehicle than a HMMWV [to include internal carriage in a CH47 or CH53]. Plus (6) there's a guided round, the M395 LINK [This is old, they've been deployed since then, 1m CEP w/ laser]. Other rounds are on the way.
With nr. (1) above being the big Kahuna of those reasons... :D
At the end of the day I'm reminded...
Even in the age of precision weapons, real human beings -- complete and complimented with flaws -- are often left to fight the battles and, administer the peace.
Refine your search technique
Putting 'Guided 120mm mortar' in Google popped up on the first page entries from Sweden, India, China and the US.
The M395 is in limited operational service in Afghanistan. Both Sweden and Switzerland have adopted the Strix so it is in service though Ii suppose one can quibble about the operational aspect...
The M395 is an ATK product, derived from the Diehl and Lockheed Martin cooperation on the Bussard PGM -- that ouight to be common knowledge. No one is denying that Diehl was the originator (except the ATK company that would now like to sell it to anyone who'd buy it and is wary of German export controls...).
As Fuchs said:
Quote:
"...Americans talk a lot about their weapons projects even years before they yield production examples or a cancellation - other countries work silently on their hardware. IIRC many munitions on the list (HDD search is working) had SAL guidance.
Too true -- one of the many adverse impacts of a dysfunctional Congress... :rolleyes:
Yup, Google googles differently ...
depending on the country you are searching from. Found that out a few years ago when a Finnish cousin and I were searching for the same thing (in English). Has to do with databases and also filtering.
It's a really good idea if you're a grunt...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gringo Malandro
I have no doubt that #1 played a big (biggest) part in that decision. I'm not sure I understand why that's a good idea though.
It is a very good idea because the Artillery, like the AF is into control and if they don't want to support you, they will not. I've had that happen way too many times and generally for extremely poor reasons. It's a good idea even if you aren't a grunt because it's a more versatile weapon.
Quote:
I'll take your word that the 120s are more accurate, though in practice mortars seem to be more prone to error.
Wrong, mortars are generally less prone to error than the M101, M102 and the M119 -- however, due to micromanaging and nervous commanders, you find that of the three or four mortars in a platoon, only one gunner and one computer do most of the firing -- the best of each, 'to avoid error' (or embarrassment). Dumb, because it means the other gunners and computers don't get enough practice and therefor make a lot of mistakes -- that's your firing errors...
Quote:
The 105 has a much longer effective range, especially with the RAP round, which is 80% more lethal (not that I would want to shoot it rocket off)
Not really that big a range advantage and the 105 is absolutely not 80% more lethal, the 120 has a larger charge. IMI and ATK are developing the M971 DPICM round.
Quote:
I'd like to hear the argument for precision mortar rounds. Sure it might be fun to have, but with the HIMARS/MLRS and the Excalibur at seems like money better spent elsewhere. Especially since, and this may by due to the Copperhead, I'm not so psyched about laser designation.
You won't get it from me, I also am not a fan of PGM, particularly LGPGM. Too much money for too little benefit IMO.
Quote:
You make some good points and I'll admit I'm not totally up to date on what is actually being fielded with the 120, but with 60s and 81s it seems redundant to me. Whereas the 105 actually fills the gap between mortars and the 155s.
Not really, the 105 range isn't all that great -- 11,400m (charge 7); 14,000m (charge 8); 19,500m (M913 rocket assisted projectile -- and my spies tell me that has accuracy problems) and with the new 120 rounds edging toward a 13 click range and a RAP in the works, the advantage of the 105 is fading rapidly, my bet is that it'll be out of the inventory within 10 years, replaced by the M777 as production of that ramps up and it gets cheaper; that and the NLOS-C.
I won't even address what too many charge 8 and RAP shots do to your tube life... ;)
Of course, if we'd bought the British L118 instead of the 119, we'd have more range and bigger shells but we had a lot of old 105 ammo in the depots and it was a $$ based decision.
The Marines have already or are in process of ditching their 105s and are buying Thomson Brandt Rifled 120s with still more lethal ammo, even better accuracy and greater range -- and it weigh a ton less than an M119. The M119 is reasonably accurate but not as good as a 120 and it doesn't have that much more range -- plus, my Redleg friends tell me it's a maintenance headache.
As for the other mortars, the 60 is too little to do much damage but it does have its uses -- it sure beats the AGLs. The 81 is better for many things but it will not lay down the volume of explosive the 120 can and has only about 50-60% of the range of a 120.
The 120 will do more damage within its range than the 105, it is more accurate, requires little maintenance and is going to get more types of rounds. -- and it's controlled by the Infantry Battalion. In Viet Nam, more than one Inf Bn Cdr offered to give up 105s in DS to keep his mortars when the Base Camp defense guys wanted the then 4.2 inch / 107 mm M30 which also outperformed the 105, not least on rate of sustained fire. Sustained fire has not been an issue in our current wars; it was in Korea and Viet Nam and you can bet that it will be again, sometime, somewhere. You should grow to love the 120 because it's going to be around for a long time while I suspect the 105's days are numbered. :D