Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 123

Thread: Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    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.

  2. #62
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  3. #63
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Fuchs said:

    Why would you care about weight if you don't intend to move it much?
    The price is much more important.
    Good question. Maybe for consealment reasons (if bigger weight means bigger size) and cross country mobility questions ...
    What price is right price? Some occasions quality triumphs quantity.

    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.
    The same thing can be said about other expensive stuff. You destroy your tanks, chopters etc that you can not evacuate. Last link with article about IMI rockets says that this is affordable at platoon level. My logic says that this must be cheaper than MRLS fire. Or not??

    It mus not be left behind, even if broken communications or other factors prevent timely use of the missiles before their position get overrun.
    If you work out TTP that says "Abandon container and swith to another one, you leave it." How destroy it is another question.

    It makes sense to think of this as a container on a truck - a mobile launcher.
    It depends how your forces control the battle space. Did Hezbollah drive around with their rocket plaforms during 2006 war?

  4. #64
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    WW2 is a better base for thought than Israel's meddling with paramilitaries in regard to Baltic defence, Kaur.

  5. #65
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Fuchs, would you motivate you argument that WWII is better example that 2006 war? Why shouldn't we learn from Georgian war last year?

    Soviets didn't know the remedy against ATGM's in the 1982, when they were in top condition. I doubt that they know this today. New technologies like Netfire is even more sophisticated to counter. Gareev admits this here. this page is from book "Field Artillery and Firepower".

    garejev.jpg (768 KB)

  6. #66
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaur View Post
    Fuchs, would you motivate you argument that WWII is better example that 2006 war? Why shouldn't we learn from Georgian war last year?

    Soviets didn't know the remedy against ATGM's in the 1982, when they were in top condition. I doubt that they know this today. New technologies like Netfire is even more sophisticated to counter.
    You cannot limit your areas of study and you have to understand what you are looking at.
    WW2 can lead you down a dead end road in exactly the same way the 2nd Lebanon War could. Based on even simple analysis, in 2006, the vast majority of ATGMs Hezbollah fired (80%+), missed!
    ATGMs can be beaten. The issue is cost versus effect.

    I don't see that NETFIRES brings much to the party.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #67
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Wilf said:

    the vast majority of ATGMs Hezbollah fired (80%+), missed!
    Quality of training, quality of weapon etc?

    ATGMs can be beaten. The issue is cost versus effect.
    IED's can be beaten, but they are not beaten.

    I like Netfires type weapon because that you can hide it and it is precice against conventional armoured units. You are stupid if you chose dumb artillery with dumb munition and start to fight Cold war style artillery duel. Georgians tried and failed. Hezbollah used older generation rockets that demanded you to crawl to the line of sight of enemy tanks and they failed. Hezbollah rockets flew till the last day of war. In theory there is remedy against every tactics and every weapon. In practice it depends how many troops and what technologies it demands to root out different weapons. For example, if Taliban swarms all it's units to attack conventionally Kabul, this is like gift for US B-52 squadron. Taliban uses IED's and we need huge number of troops to root them out.

  8. #68
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaur View Post
    Quality of training, quality of weapon etc?
    Both and much more.
    IED's can be beaten, but they are not beaten.
    Being stupid is not an excuse. The British Army defeated (made irrelevant) the IRA's IEDs in South Armagh, by staying off the roads.

    Hezbollah used older generation rockets that demanded you to crawl to the line of sight of enemy tanks and they failed.
    Spike and specifically Spike-LR. Fraction of the cost of Netfires.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #69
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Wilf proposed:

    Spike and specifically Spike-LR. Fraction of the cost of Netfires.
    In tank batallion there is approximately 30 tanks. How many Spike-LR platforms and what time do you need to kill it? In some conditions time is precious thing.

    Last edited by Jedburgh; 10-12-2009 at 10:25 PM.

  10. #70
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaur View Post
    In tank batallion there is approximately 30 tanks. How many Spike-LR platforms and what time do you need to kill it? In some conditions time is precious thing.
    Soviet Tactical doctrine states that a density of 20 ATGM post per kilometre and depth of frontage, will stop a Tank battalion (45 tanks) stone cold dead. I don't know where those figures come from but they date from about 1979, and have some semblance to Anti-tank numbers used in 1945.

    It' not time! It's the employment in time. if a Soviet MR BN is advancing at 1 kilometre every 90 seconds, then OK, but that rate of advance is VERY rare, and you cannot do it through a minefield or when it costs you 30% of your force per kilometre driven.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  11. #71
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Wilf said:

    It' not time! It's the employment in time. if a Soviet MR BN is advancing at 1 kilometre every 90 seconds, then OK, but that rate of advance is VERY rare, and you cannot do it through a minefield or when it costs you 30% of your force per kilometre driven.
    I prefer "mobility of fire" to "mobility of shooter". Spike fire is limited to max 8 km. Netfire has triple more. Instead of dragging Spike, sensors by the aveanue of approach are swithching to next. This means that enemy chooses the place of your ambush.

  12. #72
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Fuchs, would you motivate you argument that WWII is better example that 2006 war? Why shouldn't we learn from Georgian war last year?
    Do you expect the Russians to fight like the Israelis of 2006? Even the Israelis of 2009 wouldn't do that.

    Why should we emphasize the lessons of the South Ossetian War? It looked A LOT like WW2 to me - but just as a 1/10,000th particle of it.

    All conventional wars post-195 were very short and can only offer fragmentary lessons.


    Studying the art of war is about discovering the many individual mosaic pieces and learning about they add to each other and become one.

    Think of a mosaic picture filling a 10x3m wall.
    A few stones have been exchanged with new ones during the last two generations. Now what should you do?
    Go very close to see the few new stones close-up, look at large parts of the picture that are of greatest interest or step back and look at the whole masterwork?

    - - -

    You don't need to "kill" a tank battalion, especially not with total kills.

    It's enough to degrade its effectiveness, possibly up to the point of no direct effect (when they're kept in reserve because an employment would be too risky at the time).
    You can alternatively succeed through Pyrrhic defeats. Sell them ground for hardware. That doesn't require a total annihilation either.


    The range of guided missiles (Spike vs. Netfires) isn't very important in most terrains. There's rarely an opportunity to shoot and hit beyond 1.5 or at most 2 km. Long-range hits were historically only common in deserts and/or against incompetent opponents. Netfires won't change that by much.
    More range simply doesn't add much net advantage to the table; the time of flight increases, the communication becomes less reliable, the munition becomes more expensive and heavier, target data becomes less reliable and the system tends to become allocated to higher echelons (Bde instead of Bn).

    Netfires' greatest advantages (and it's very different to the apparently cheaper Israeli Jumper system) are
    - its ability to engage 'rear' targets (jammers, CPs, mortars, artillery) and
    - indirect fire (non line-of-sight advantage over most ATGMs)

    Both is available in other systems that stay necessary anyway.


    About the photo:
    There was only one road and the terrain around it was mostly non-negotiable. The valley was a single long bottleneck that cold have been sealed easily with artillery, obstacles, mines and other tools for days - without a single RPG/bazooka/Panzerfaust or ATGM.

  13. #73
    Council Member Xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    MCB Quantico
    Posts
    119

    Default Responding to the original post...

    ...I'll sink my teeth into the full thread later.


    120mm is a great platform. Especially the ungodly accurate EFSS (although I was FDO for the test battery, so it may just have been my well-oiled FDC). However, 120's just don't have the range or the sustainability to take a big chunk out of the M777's job market. Great weapon for Direct Support, not so good for general support.

    The M777 may not last long, but some 155mm Howitzer will. It's a good middle range weapon between mortars and rockets. There's a company working on a high speed piece of gear that creates a "vacuum" of hydrogen inside the bore and the tube of the gun. Since a round travels easier through 100% hydrogen than through normal air, you can get 30+ clicks with an unassisted projectile. Only problem is getting it small enough to mount on a gun. Should be good for business. Plus, nothing can do illum as well as cannon arty.

    HIMARS are a great general support asset and can't be beat when you need dead balls accuracy.

    Netfires. Limited utility that can't be more easily provided by other assets, not worth the money.

  14. #74
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Fuchs said:

    Netfires' greatest advantages (and it's very different to the apparently cheaper Israeli Jumper system) are
    - its ability to engage 'rear' targets (jammers, CPs, mortars, artillery) and
    - indirect fire (non line-of-sight advantage over most ATGMs)


    Both is available in other systems that stay necessary anyway.
    Those are the characteristics that I admire.

    Also I agree that you don't have to "kill" the whole column of tanks to achieve good results. You just have to pick out commanders (in case of conscript army). Like sniper work.

    About the photo:
    There was only one road and the terrain around it was mostly non-negotiable. The valley was a single long bottleneck that cold have been sealed easily with artillery, obstacles, mines and other tools for days - without a single RPG/bazooka/Panzerfaust or ATGM
    Here is another photo.


  15. #75
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaur View Post
    Those are the characteristics that I admire.

    And yet; totally overpriced and easily substituted for with evolved traditional systems.

    Also I agree that you don't have to "kill" the whole column of tanks to achieve good results. You just have to pick out commanders (in case of conscript army). Like sniper work.

    Conscript armies like the Wehrmacht, of which some infantry divisions kept fighting and stalling attacks even after 40% loss of troops, 80% loss of heavy ordnance and around 60% loss of leaders?

    You seem to overestimate the effect of leader losses as well. It may work fine at times, but it's not what I meant and certainly not reliable.


    Here is another photo.

    ...
    That photo was done AFTER the decision, after the breakthrough - south of the city. Terrain is almost irrelevant at that point.

    Yet, it shows that even in that flat region there was little hope of even exploiting the full range of a TOW, much less of a Netfire missile.
    2 km is a practical line of sight limit in normal cultivated/inhabited terrain - until you factor in smoke (direct and indirect), dust, fog and probably also mirage.

  16. #76
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Conscript armies like the Wehrmacht, of which some infantry divisions kept fighting and stalling attacks even after 40% loss of troops, 80% loss of heavy ordnance and around 60% loss of leaders?

    You seem to overestimate the effect of leader losses as well. It may work fine at times, but it's not what I meant and certainly not reliable.
    This is question about unit cohesion, motivation etc. If we talk about IIWW, I can bring you example about Estonians.

    Estonian Rifle Corps in the Red Army

    In June 1940, while the Estonian army was integrated into the Soviet military structure, where in June 1940 there were 16,800 men, was changed into "22nd Territorial Rifle Corps" 5,500 Estonian soldiers served in the corps during the first battle. 4,500 of them went over to the German side. In September 1941, when the corps was liquidated, there were still 500 previous Estonian soldiers
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia...n_the_Red_Army

    I'm 100 percent sure that Chechen Vostok batallion is more cohesive than any Pskov airborne division batallion. Due to the culture.

    Yet, it shows that even in that flat region there was little hope of even exploiting the full range of a TOW, much less of a Netfire missile.
    2 km is a practical line of sight limit in normal cultivated/inhabited terrain - until you factor in smoke (direct and indirect), dust, fog and probably also mirage.
    My point is that you must leave minimum footprint on the most suspected area. It similar to German marksman job in Normandy hedged terrain, but with more efficent weapons. Oppositions artillery is covering most suspected areas and make locate sensor and shooter to different places. Take a look how Soviet artillery worked in Afganistan and Russians in Chechnya.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-13-2009 at 06:55 PM.

  17. #77

  18. #78
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    The U.S. Army's Non Line-of-Sight Launch System's (NLOS-LS) Precision Attack Missile failed to hit its target four out of six times during recent testing, according to a testing document.

    The NLOS-LS Precision Attack Missiles (PAM) are slated to cost $466,000 apiece in 2011, according to budget documents submitted to Congress Feb. 1.

    An ongoing Army precision munitions portfolio review is looking at scaling back the final number of PAM missiles purchased and possibly launching a new program to develop a cheaper alternative weapon.
    http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4509667&c=AME&s=LAN

  19. #79
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    It's too expensive because of the multi-mode seeker. That was known in advance. I've always said it's too expensive.

  20. #80
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaur View Post
    The U.S. Army's Non Line-of-Sight Launch System's (NLOS-LS) Precision Attack Missile failed to hit its target four out of six times during recent testing, according to a testing document.

    The NLOS-LS Precision Attack Missiles (PAM) are slated to cost $466,000 apiece in 2011, according to budget documents submitted to Congress Feb. 1.

    An ongoing Army precision munitions portfolio review is looking at scaling back the final number of PAM missiles purchased and possibly launching a new program to develop a cheaper alternative weapon.
    Costly indeed, even when we not consider that at most every second missile hit the target.


    Firn

Similar Threads

  1. Retooling the Artilleryman
    By Jedburgh in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 03-09-2009, 01:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •