Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[kaur]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[kaur]

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.

[kaur]

Soviet artillery in Afganistan.

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Go_to...insurgency.pdf

Chechnya.

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/1997/...AGES_42_45.pdf

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...TKQMre-HIsRIfQ

[kaur]

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

[Fuchs]

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

[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

[Firn]

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