Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[reed11b]

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

What was wrong with the E-FOGM again?
Reed

[Fuchs]

Dunno, but I suspect there's a general problem with non line of sight fire optic guided missiles with infrared seekers.
All such projects seem to die.

An EuroSpike engineer claimed to me that the breaking fibre problem was long since solved with engineering trickery (a material applied to the surface fo the glass fibre itself), but I learned that some people opine that infrared seekers are poor for lock on after launch (= not a good missile sensor type for finding & identifying camouflaged targets).

[OfTheTroops]

You all make wonderful arguments and we all have our faves. It usually comes down to the good fast or cheap and you can have 1 or 2 of the 3
The MLRS family can do just about anything you want. Put it in a window or take out a grid square.

It seems the future of indirect fire weapons are unfortunately in the hands of politics, rivalries and St Barbara.

[William F. Owen]

An EuroSpike engineer claimed to me that the breaking fibre problem was long since solved with engineering trickery (a material applied to the surface fo the glass fibre itself), but I learned that some people opine that infrared seekers are poor for lock on after launch (= not a good missile sensor type for finding & identifying camouflaged targets).

Not sure about this. Spike pays out the cable, so it's never under tension in the way conventional wire guidance is. Using FOG you do not have to lock off the sensor. You just put the cross-hairs on what you want to hit. No thermal image is required. That is how Spike operators train to target hatches on the top of AFVs.
If the cable breaks without an operator cued lock off, the missile just continues on the last aim point. If the target image was locked, then it will guide.
There is a new 25km version of Spike

[kaur]

Once the guidance malfunction is identified, then “we can figure out what it would take to fix it. Then the Army’s got the decision: Okay, do we modify the program? Do we cancel the program? Or do we continue?”

http://defensetech.org/2010/03/03/ar...-missile-miss/

[Firn]

Not sure about this. Spike pays out the cable, so it's never under tension in the way conventional wire guidance is. Using FOG you do not have to lock off the sensor. You just put the cross-hairs on what you want to hit. No thermal image is required. That is how Spike operators train to target hatches on the top of AFVs.
If the cable breaks without an operator cued lock off, the missile just continues on the last aim point. If the target image was locked, then it will guide.
There is a new 25km version of Spike

Such systems could be of use in mountain warfare especially it could be easily adopted to fire smaller and lighter version of the Spike range and be mounted easily on 4x4 trucks/jeep/bandvagns. A couple of NLOS and a load of ER/LR on a bandvagn would enhance the capabilities of the supported unit against armor, vehicles, heavy weapons and other important targets (maybe even helicopters, more likely in high altitudes) considerably. The bandvagn has been already outfitted with TOW and other systems, so it should be clearly duable.

Vehicles of that kind could form the tank-hunter company of the battalion and double as precision-guided NLOS support weapon. Large range, high accuracy and over-the-crest capability can be very important factors and greatly ease part of the supply problem. It is of course not in the least a substitute for a heavy mortar.

I will be interesting to see just how much the very longe range missiles cost.


Firn

[Fuchs]

Netfires is dead because of its idiotic costs and technical incompetence of its developer.

http://defensetech.org/2010/04/23/ar...#axzz0lx7cXmIU

[kaur]

25-km Spike.



http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SI...LES/6/1026.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiYLn_etM6A

Here is Nimrod missile launch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUVlE...layer_embedded

[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?

[Ken White]

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?

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

[B.Smitty]

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

MLRS only offers better accuracy when using guided munitions right? Unguided MLRS is far less accurate than unguided 155mm. Also, isn't munition cube for MLRS much higher than for 155mm?

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

155mm and 105mm seem complementary. 155mm (in 52 cal) has greater range, and far more ongoing munition development than 105mm. OTOH, 105mm is useful when ammo cube/weight is of critical importance (e.g. Afghanistan)

[William F. Owen]

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

IIRC, IMI has developed GPS and laser guidance packs for all artillery rockets over 70mm. They certainly have the mature technology to do it.
Even their trajectory corrected stuff is pretty accurate and pretty cheap.

[B.Smitty]

IIRC, IMI has developed GPS and laser guidance packs for all artillery rockets over 70mm. They certainly have the mature technology to do it.
Even their trajectory corrected stuff is pretty accurate and pretty cheap.

I read about their trajectory corrected stuff. Do you know how this works? Does it use a modified rocket that accepts guidance commands in flight? Or is it just using radar data from the previous, unguided shot to refine the next, unguided shot?

The later would presumably be less accurate, but perhaps a better complement to GPS guided rounds than the former.

[Fuchs]

Assuming it's still the old course correction stuff:

1. radar tracks projectile/rocket
2. computer predicts miss, calculates required correction
3. radio tells projectile to brake
4. projectile begins to brake at perfect time to minimize range error (creating a roughly circular dispersion; dispersion left/right is usually smaller than in range for unguided munitions)

Sorry, don't remember the correct arty terms for "range" & "left/right".


The simple correction for follow-on munitions has been used with modern rocket artillery afaik since at least the 70's and merely makes registering unnecessary (the first rocket can be set to timed self-destruct in order to maintain surprise for the full salvo).

[B.Smitty]

Assuming it's still the old course correction stuff:

1. radar tracks projectile/rocket
2. computer predicts miss, calculates required correction
3. radio tells projectile to brake
4. projectile begins to brake at perfect time to minimize range error (creating a roughly circular dispersion; dispersion left/right is usually smaller than in range for unguided munitions)

Interesting.

I wonder how the cost of a course correcting rocket compares to one using GPS/INS guidance?

[SethB]

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

What about the limitations of the smaller shell? Not only can you fit less explosive or payload, but the incremental modernization of the 155 means that M795 from the DPICM family has an ECR of about 100M while M1 for the 105 is still only 35 meters? (Accepting that ECR is a somewhat dated term).

Can the difference be made up with accuracy and near precision munition, or massed fires? Is that the kind of thing that MLRS and HIMARs should focus on and leave more flexible and responsive fires to DS and organic FA and MTR units?

And for that matter should we have an anti-tank projectile for the 120?

ETA: What do you think of the M119A3 with DFCS?

[SethB]

MLRS only offers better accuracy when using guided munitions right? Unguided MLRS is far less accurate than unguided 155mm. Also, isn't munition cube for MLRS much higher than for 155mm?

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

155mm and 105mm seem complementary. 155mm (in 52 cal) has greater range, and far more ongoing munition development than 105mm. OTOH, 105mm is useful when ammo cube/weight is of critical importance (e.g. Afghanistan)

Unguided MLRS isn't particularly accurate, nor is the range that far. Even the extended range munitions can't get much further than some of the newer 52 caliber pieces. That said, you can fit a lot of submunitions in a small number of rockets. A pack of MLRS weighs something like 5,000 pounds and isn't small at all.

A smaller rocket would be something like NLOS but if it was just a grid seeker then there might have been fewer developmental issues. I've yet to meet someone who is willing and able to explain the differences between rockets and shells when they impact, with regards to penetration and terminal effect. If anyone has any insight I would appreciate it.

[Sumtingwong]

Seth,

I was an MLRS gunner about 15 years ago. At that time, the MLRS had a couple of different munitions that we worked with regularly. One was a missile, the other were rockets--submunitions in each. Shells explode on impact, the rockets release the submunitions in an air-burst at a specified altitude. MLRS doesn't have to be accurate, it is an area weapon.

[SethB]

Check. I'm going to be an MLRS guy here in a few months.

DPICM isn't used in either theater right now, which marginalizes the system from the start. The M31 provides a 51.5 pound HE warhead and is a PGM, so it has more use in current operations. The dud rate on older DPICM systems was 4% and they are now going to >1% dud rates in order to prevent UXB on the battlefield.

Danger close on MLRS is 2,000 meters. That is more than three times are far as tube artillery. With M30 or M31 you can get a lot closer. M30 uses a guidance system and DPICM.

There are a number of missiles as well, but with a 70-300km range (depending on which missile we are discussing) they are in a completely different class and employed much differently.

Which brings me to my initial thought when I opened this thread several years ago. There are a number of different fire support systems that have different advantages, disadvantages and methods of employment.

[Ken White]

What about the limitations of the smaller shell? Not only can you fit less explosive or payload, but the incremental modernization of the 155 means that M795 from the DPICM family has an ECR of about 100M while M1 for the 105 is still only 35 meters? (Accepting that ECR is a somewhat dated term).

have no idea what ECR stands for...

Comparing the M795 with an M1 shell is apple / kiwi fruitish. Compare the bursting radius of the 795 (roughly 50m kill, 100m casualty) and the newer M913, M915, M1130 and Denel LR 105 with prefragmented shell can equal that. However, bursting / casualty radii are very dependent on fuze type, ground type, angle of arrival and thus range as well as other things -- bottom line is that the 105 is generally less potent than the 155 all things considered. That applies not only to HE but to submunition carriers, PGMs, Illum, WP -- all of 'em...

The question is does that difference impact tactically enough to justify the added weight of gun and shells plus charges. My vote would be no, it does not -- but then I'm a light guy...

The difference is made up by using MLRS / GMLRS -- and to be developed MRS rocket / missiles and launchers. Which offer more range and damage potential than will any 155 shell or possible improvement thereof.

Can the difference be made up with accuracy and near precision munition, or massed fires? Is that the kind of thing that MLRS and HIMARs should focus on and leave more flexible and responsive fires to DS and organic FA and MTR units?

Not an artillerist but my vote would be yes; perhaps if enough stuff is available to mass; yes.

And for that matter should we have an anti-tank projectile for the 120?

Yes

ETA: What do you think of the M119A3 with DFCS?

I think we should've bought the M118.