Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[kaur]

Fuchs said:

That doesn't mean much.
The South Ossetia War was a 1960's war apparently. Pretty much all modern technology could have had a huge impact if applied properly in that conflict.

As far as i understand Georgian artillery/air force pounded Russian armed forces during first 24h. The biggest problem was accuracy (quality), not quantity.

The primary lesson of that war is in my opinion the importance of the human element (again), especially morale and ability to keep fighting after loss of communication. The Georgians failed miserably and no affordable modern technology would have saved them.

This is true. I understand that Netfires is more compact (easier to manage) accurate and cheaper, than (this case Georgian) artillery/tank batallions and air force squadrons. Georgians started to fail due to the many reasons. My point is that US trained during several years hundreds and hundreds of Georgians. I understand that the purpos was counter-insurgency, but if just small part of this effort could be used to train Netfires batteries, the 2008 August would show different result.

Guided missiles (especially the subsonic ones) have a weak spot when facing a modern conventional opposition: They're expensive.
Their significant price and high effectiveness enable and justify a capable defense. You cannot defend very cheap munitions with high-tech equipment without going broke, but you can do so if you know that your adversary cannot buy huge quantities of the equally expensive offensive munition.

I was talking about using this weapon against Russians and Israel. First showed very poor skills. Israel reveived rocket pounding till the last day of conflict. Of course there are available several effective systems, but I suspect that they are not avaialble for every unit in the theatre of war.

Missiles like Netfires will soon be (or are already) on the target list of battlefield air defense assets, just like all kinds of low and medium altitude drones.

The technology advance for offensive weapons will be countered by an improvement of defensive weapons and in the end there won't be much 'revolutionary' change and no silver bullet, but an even worse infantry/others ratio and a larger (so-called) defense budget.

Here we talk about defence-offence capabilites cycle. I suspect that advancement in technology will soon make rocket fly faster, unpredictable trajectories etc. I think that Netfires 1. generation is more promising than present day anti-tank chopters.

They had long-range ATGM missiles and it didn't seem to change their methods. Their attacks were political, and they chose the correct tool for the purpose.
I doubt that their strategic thinkers want many dead Israeli at all. They win the PR battle much easier if the Israeli actions are disproportionate.

Burning Merkava company could be mental boost for whole generation of followers.

If your enemy has conventional superiority in the theatre of war, Netfires could be one of the best solutions of indirect fire to weaker side. You don't have to hide your MLRS/155mm artillery colums/logistical tails from enemy's air force. I suspect that signature of Netfires is much smaller than MRLS/155 and this is good concealment against enemy's CB/CF. For FCS Netfires is just one possible indirect fire weapons with precision munition, but for small states in small geographical areas this may be just only concept available (that can survive another day).

[Gringo Malandro]

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?

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.

[Ken White]

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...

[reed11b]

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...

BINGO, nailed it one. It is one of the reasons I am a big proponent for developing PGMM's for the 120's the 81's and even the 60's.
Reed

[Stan]

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.

[William F. Owen]

There are only 3 actual 120mm LG Bombs that I aware of. I am not aware of any that are in service or combat proven.

Point being, the Israelis have a whole family of very light and very easy to use laser designators, one of which is in service with USMC. I was looking at one the other day. Takes 30 mins of training to use!

[Gringo Malandro]

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...

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. I'll take your word that the 120s are more accurate, though in practice mortars seem to be more prone to error.

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). But let's be honest, when you really need to break things you use the DPICM round, which I don't think the 120 has, though I could be wrong.

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 can send grids from a cell phone, or a UAV. Not to mention you can do refinements with PSS-SOF and you don't have to worry about dust clouds, etc..

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.

[jmm99]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

[ODB]

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.

I will take one more internal asset any day vs. support from an external source. Ask any of the guys who were part of the fight in the Shahi-Kot Valley back in March 2002 if they wish they would have had 120s. After this fight was over we suddenly were being fielded with 120s in country. I guarantee it would be a resounding yes. Hard to take 105s into that kind of terrain or even get them into a position they can support from in that terrain.

Another added benefit is the fire restrictions placed within an AO. Who has to clear those fires. When it is an organic weapons system, that ground commander has the authority to clear fires. I can get almost instant support, instead of waiting for the approval to come back down.

I am a huge fan of 60s as well. Did some studying a few years back in regards to firing them from the rear of HMMWVs to provide instant support and from the turret on a gun truck. Never got playing around with the turret idea but have heard rumor of someone actually fabricating a mount for the turret system and doing this. Granted out the back of the truck we never went above a charge 2, but it was effective.

I'm of the thought if I get a bigger bang with more flexibility and less red tape then why would I want something else.

[Gringo Malandro]

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.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... 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.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. 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.

I'll grant you that the artillery at times has failed to remember "the customer" and that is unacceptable. But refusing to support for poor reasons sounds more like a C2 issue. We had nothing but good feedback about DS arty in OIF1. The artillery commander doesn't make the final call anyhow, and the FSCC can push that down to the subordinate unit. In the current environment (IZ) you need general officer approval to fart, so that's a moot point there.

And as someone pointed out, with a weapon having those capabilities, it wouldn't make sense for one unit commander to hoard it when it might be better employed supporting an adjacent unit, that's inefficient.

My original question was about why we would reinvent the wheel, though from what I'm reading here it sounds like it has already been reinvented. I'm not too stubborn to say if something is better than use it. But this seems to bleed into a discussion of the artillery's relevance in the fight. That may be a discussion worth having but going to the mortar seems like a back door way of avoiding it.

By the way, the Marines got rid of the 105s YEARS ago, which was a big mistake at the time. They are getting the 120s, but those will be fielded by DS arty batteries who will be trained on both the 120 and 777, fielding the one appropriate for the mission. At least the last time I checked.

P.S. Sorry about my poor HTML skills

[B.Smitty]

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.

...

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.

Do new 105mm guns like the Denel G7 and the proposed BAE V2C2 gun, with their 32km range using BB rounds, change anyones thinking on the future of the 105mm howitzer?

[GMLRS]

# Role for MLRS++: massed technical targets, area targets, salvo assault, long range
Comments?

I'm afraid we are long since removed from the duck hunter role. Our biggest delay in response time is AC, and besides being deadly accurate, who has a lower CDE in DoD?

[kaur]

IAI is developing his own "rockets in a box" version. Take a look at journal's page nr 8.

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416099555

[William F. Owen]

GPS and Laser Guidance is now down to all most any ammunition below 70mm.
I had some good discussions as to the implications when I was at the IDF's Land Warfare Conference. The technology is there, but the thinking, as in implications has to be kept somewhat in check. 120 and 81mm Iron bombs still have great utility!

[kaur]

Wilf said:

The technology is there, but the thinking, as in implications has to be kept somewhat in check.

I think this kind of shooting platform is ideal for inferior force in small battlespace, which has to carry out territory defence. You will get best "weight per kill" ratio and this is really "shoot and forget" solution. You just empty your container (that may selfdestroy itself in seconds) and switch to another previously hidden platform. You don't have to drag all that logistical tale with you.

[Fuchs]

Why would you care about weight if you don't intend to move it much?
The price is much more important.

A container full of missiles is expensive enough to actually force an army to use it only at high value targets - and to avoid its loss.
It mus not be left behind, even if broken communications or other factors prevent timely use of the missiles before their position get overrun.

It makes sense to think of this as a container on a truck - a mobile launcher.