Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[kaur]

About Lahat.

Similar to the force protection Lahat concept, the 'trigger' will be activated by the supported unit, where the infantry calling for support will command the launch and designate the target to be attacked. Each vehicle could support units beyond line of sight, at ranges of up to eight kilometers, using anti-tank or multi-purpose missiles depending on the effect required. The missile unit could also attack targets within line- of -sight autonomously using its own sensors.

http://defense-update.com/products/l/lahat.htm

Fuchs said:

The Soviets restricted their repertoire because of fear.

Isn't this more safe when Su-25 and Mi-24 can't attack your unit from 50-500m? They have to go much more higher and their efficency drops considerably.

I have a different interpretation of what you think about: You seem to think in terms of attrition - actual destruction, not tactical (psychological) effect.

Idea about possible destruction is the basis of deterrence. If you don't have strategic depth, safe heavens, armoured back up, artillery formations, very limited resupply possibilities (dumb munition vs smart munition) etc; you just need to pack the power to small units and consider weight per kill variable.

I can instantly provide you a rather long list of effective countermeasures to every kind of battlefield missile - even to hypervelocity missiles.

It is about learning curve, TTP's etc. You just have to be flexible and find gaps

SethB said:

Dumb shells have a future. How much of one is more related to the fate of artillery in general rather than the shells in particular.

It depends on METT. If you manage to ask from Taliban, would they like to change their RPG's to NLAW's and Javelins and Chinese missiles to Spikes, Lahats, Nimrods, what they would say? Would you carry across mountains 1000 kg of iron or 1000 kg of gold?

[Fuchs]

It is about learning curve, TTP's etc. You just have to be flexible and find gaps

Almost incapable insurgents may provide years for trial & error, but modern land war is quick. Days or weeks suffice to break a medium-sized army. It has been like that for centuries, actually.


And you didn't get my point about the Su-25 and Stinger. The AFG scenario led to careful Soviets.
The Israelis and Argentinians did not become that careful when faced with a comparable battlefield air defence threat.

The Israelis had the guts to attack SA-6 batteries with A-4s despite 23mm AAA.
The Argentinians had the guts to attack the RN with low-level bomb runs.

A heavy Bde which faces one or two LAHAT-armed infantry battle groups will simply attack, behave like Israelis and Argentinians did - not like the Soviets did.

kaur, I actually wrote about this problem in January.

[kaur]

Fuchs, moderators will interupt us soon , but ...

Almost incapable insurgents may provide years for trial & error, but modern land war is quick. Days or weeks suffice to break a medium-sized army. It has been like that for centuries, actually.

My opionon is that that's why you should pack the best punchers to small unit level. They maintain punching power after first breakthrough and regrouping.

And you didn't get my point about the Su-25 and Stinger. The AFG scenario led to careful Soviets.
The Israelis and Argentinians did not become that careful when faced with a comparable battlefield air defence threat.

If we consider geography, then at least Israelis were much more better situation. They didn't have to control Afganistan-sized area and build the state. Mission duration was much more predictable and task was vital. The second variable makes biggest wonders of course "Stingers" pushed planes and chopters higher and if there were modern ATGM's available, I belive that Soviet columns would retreat to Uzbekistan earlier than 1989.

A heavy Bde which faces one or two LAHAT-armed infantry battle groups will simply attack, behave like Israelis and Argentinians did - not like the Soviets did.

I don't want to say that Lahat is remedy against all possible scenarios. I just push the idea that this kind of weapon gives better chances to resist against superior armoured opponent in very small theater of war. I stress the concealment and logistical variables. After emptying Lahat module, then enemy airborne units can even land directly on platform and capture it, but 5 km away there is already another platform ready to carry out fire mission. If this Lahat/Nebelwerfer Hummer carries 12 rockets and even half hit the target, this is 2 tank platoons. Good job! I suspect that even your light skirmishers concept can use those weapons

In my little homeland there were rumors that Estonian military will buy tank batallion and IFV's for 1 infantry brigade (the EDF's only one) for 250 000 000 EUR's. One argument that was used in discussion was that even Chechens had one batallion in the first war. The sad fact is that those tanks didn't achieve much. I just speculate if Chechens had to decide to buy tank batallion and IFV's or 12 000 SAAB's NLAW AT weapons, then they decided to buy the latter. They couldn't do this kind of choice because they just had to fight with weapons that Russians traded them. Georgian Army made decision to follow big army's model. And we saw the result in the beginning of August 2008.

For US military this is maybe out of context discussion, but for small armies with very limited budget, this may be vital. Sorry for spoiling the thread

[kaur]

APKWS II: Laser-Guided Hydra Rockets in Production At Last

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/

plus

http://www.combatreform.org/groundrockets.htm

[SethB]

While APKWS is a great idea, it is not indirect fire. It is very different than the systems that this thread was created to discuss.

[kaur]

It is very different than the systems that this thread was created to discuss.

SethB, after reading first page, thank you for your attention

Anyway, does anyone know if this is possible to launch those APKWS rockets from ground based MRLS launchers and direct them with laser designator on the ground? Do those rockets work like ground launched PGM or they must have constant contact with laser beam?

[SethB]

The larger issue is that we don't issue laser designators in large enough numbers to make these things viable.