No suprise to any traveller buff, but artillery shells will soon beccome smart weapons. A simple bolt on fuse will give conventional artillery guidance and triple accuracy.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5831/
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5831/
Guided artillery
- Thread starter Todg
- Start date
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
Only as accurate as the forward observer directing the fire. One of my earliest experiences as a Y.O. in the command post was a series of corrections which came to a 3000m adjustment left. That would have put the original impact somewhere near Otterburn Camp.
Nice bit of kit though, we've been trying to produce terminally guided munitions for years. At last success.
Nice bit of kit though, we've been trying to produce terminally guided munitions for years. At last success.
The Slammers rarely relied on satellites for anything -- the Slammer's tanks could shoot down satellites, and anybody you NEEDED to hire the Slammers to fight, did the same.
The Slammers "howitzers" were actually tube fired rockets, and they had onboard guidance and target selection gear. They were programmed to locate their targets, and make any needed adjustments during terminal stage flight.
I'm a big fan ^_^
The Slammers "howitzers" were actually tube fired rockets, and they had onboard guidance and target selection gear. They were programmed to locate their targets, and make any needed adjustments during terminal stage flight.
I'm a big fan ^_^
The great thing about artiller vs. rockets is that with artillery, the whole projectile is payload, while a rocket is usually mostly propellant. Couple guided artillery with EM guns and you really have something - certainly something much more cost efective than a guided missile at artillery ranges.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5838/
Certainly, guided artillery shells are nothing new. The M712 Copperhead has been around for quite a while. But the new guidance package is a simple strap on kit that replaces a conventional fuse on an ordinary projectile. This looks to be as significant and cost effective an improvement over conventional artillery as the JDAM was over conventional iron bombs.
"Every projectile a smart projectile"
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5838/
Certainly, guided artillery shells are nothing new. The M712 Copperhead has been around for quite a while. But the new guidance package is a simple strap on kit that replaces a conventional fuse on an ordinary projectile. This looks to be as significant and cost effective an improvement over conventional artillery as the JDAM was over conventional iron bombs.
"Every projectile a smart projectile"
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I can't help but think that the ideal marriage of technologies will be:
EM gun + scramjet projectile + in-flight guidance
TL9?
EM gun + scramjet projectile + in-flight guidance
TL9?
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
I say we see liquid propellant guns before EM guns. The technology needs less break-throughs.
As for the Scramjet: The engine takes up space that could be used for payload. A modern 155mm artillery piece with a 52caliber barell can fire out to 32km (40 with BaseBleed or other range-enhanced ammo).
If you go much further, you get into athmosphere effects and flight-cieling problems (IIRC the "Paris Gun" shells left earth athmosphere) and have to spend mass on hardening and more power for the in-flight guidance since the deviation will increase. So it might be better to dust of those GLCM's and put them on a tracked chassis this time so they have less problems ignoring the protesting greenies.
As for the Scramjet: The engine takes up space that could be used for payload. A modern 155mm artillery piece with a 52caliber barell can fire out to 32km (40 with BaseBleed or other range-enhanced ammo).
If you go much further, you get into athmosphere effects and flight-cieling problems (IIRC the "Paris Gun" shells left earth athmosphere) and have to spend mass on hardening and more power for the in-flight guidance since the deviation will increase. So it might be better to dust of those GLCM's and put them on a tracked chassis this time so they have less problems ignoring the protesting greenies.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I agree. I'd put liquid propellant at high end TL8 though.
Ah, but the scramjet round relies on kinetic energy rather than explosive payload - the engine is the payload effectively - and it could have a range measured in hundereds of kilometres.
Yep, the projectile would need in flight and terminal guidance (GPS, or solid state radar/ladar for a more high tech solution).
I was imagining them as ship mounted weapons (I can't see a land based vehicle with the power needed for an EM gun any time soon).
Scramjets: not very useful if you deploy to a world without a standard atmosphere. And for a KE round that engine will have a lot less structural integrity and sectional density than a long rad penetrator.
Forward observers get better. The latest equipment uses GPS and a laser rangefinder to set the coordinates for a GPS guided bomb or projectile. In Afghanistan they had one accident where the FO sent his own coordinates rather than the targets', but I think they fixed the software so that is less likely to happen.
Forward observers get better. The latest equipment uses GPS and a laser rangefinder to set the coordinates for a GPS guided bomb or projectile. In Afghanistan they had one accident where the FO sent his own coordinates rather than the targets', but I think they fixed the software so that is less likely to happen.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
"In Afghanistan they had one accident where the FO sent his own coordinates rather than the targets', but I think they fixed the software so that is less likely to happen."
I think that problem probably fixed itself...
I think that problem probably fixed itself...
Liquid propelland guns are not so simple as people think - and the chemicals used are pretty ugly. They've been in development since the 1946 without a single system being deployed. "Liquid Propellant Gun Technology" by Klingenberg et al is a useful resource on the subject.
By contrast, the Army plans to field an EM gun by 2020. It looks like EM technology has pretty much halted development of LP and ETC guns.
By placing too much of the system in the projectile, you defeat a primary advantage of artillery - cost. The advantage of tube artillery over missiles is that the artillery projectile is relatively cheap and simple - with the complexity being centered in the reuseable launcher rather than the expendable payload.
Further, scramjets and similar systems reduce payload. In it's most basic form, and artillery projectile is almost entirely payload. Start adding a scramjet and you are giving up a large percentage of that payload.
The trick is to have a qualitative increase in performance without sacrificing effectiveness. The guided fuse is a simple bolt on that does not significantly effect payload while increasing accuracy. It also looks to be comparatively cheap.
Bear in mind, a so called 'competant fuse' (neither smart nor dumb) is expected to cost about $3000 per unit. "Dumb projectiles cost mere hundreds of dollars.
Cost also becomes extremely important in artillery because one doesn't fire a single shell or salvo of shells. Artillery barrages are fired in continuous order with a platoon or company of M109 artillery vehicles over a sustained period of time until "firing for effect" achieves its effect - either the target is neutralized or the unit being supported has retreated to safety.
As for usefulness, if any advanced version of these types of weapon were to become commonly available, I'd foresee them being more of silver bullet for taking out special targets within range, particularly when in close proximity to or even engaged with friendly troops, an item used sparingly relative to normal artillery responsibilites. After all, artillery still relies on a forward observer(FO) to designate a target and provide ACCURATE targeting coordinates/values.
However, I think the idea of a guided artillery round more complex than that which enhances accuracy of ballistically fired, non self-propelled round, creates a paradox when talking about artillery. Artillery is by its nature is indirect fire and it relies on an FO for target designation/acquisition. If these special munitions are laser or GPS designated, then the accuracy a fired round increases substantially, but only if used against a single target (like a command tank) or a static target This is also assuming the round is of a HEAT or APDU variety, and once again, has an FO who is now using a laser or GPS system. Using laser or GPS guidance with a standard HE or even a FASCAM against enemy troop concentrations is inherently dangerous and unlikely since the FO would have to be close enough paint a target with a laser or range it with GPS and may leave the FO in the burst radius. In either case, so long as a target doens't move too far this is still a viable, if not expensive, weapon but non-self-propelled ordnance will only correct its travel so much based on time of travel and the elevation/heading parameters from which the round was fired. To get around this, we would need to upgrade to rounds with with some sort of built-in propulsion more akin to an artillery tube-launched missiles. If we get this advanced, however, we're steering more towards a direct engagement role as opposed to the support role in which artillery is so vital. It would be like going back to WWII with the production of "tank-killer" artillery pieces. Any soldier with boots on the ground would be an unhappy camper to learn that his artillery is too busy plinking tanks 8 miles in the opposite direction as opposed to be supporting him against an enemy advance.
In any event, i think the practical usage of such a weapon would be minimal despite its usefulness, at least with artillery. However, if a such a projectile (the more basic, course correction type) was fired from some type of airborne weapons platform (such as the 105mm howitzer mounted in the AC-130 gunship), I could definitely see a more immediate benefit for this system.
As for usefulness, if any advanced version of these types of weapon were to become commonly available, I'd foresee them being more of silver bullet for taking out special targets within range, particularly when in close proximity to or even engaged with friendly troops, an item used sparingly relative to normal artillery responsibilites. After all, artillery still relies on a forward observer(FO) to designate a target and provide ACCURATE targeting coordinates/values.
However, I think the idea of a guided artillery round more complex than that which enhances accuracy of ballistically fired, non self-propelled round, creates a paradox when talking about artillery. Artillery is by its nature is indirect fire and it relies on an FO for target designation/acquisition. If these special munitions are laser or GPS designated, then the accuracy a fired round increases substantially, but only if used against a single target (like a command tank) or a static target This is also assuming the round is of a HEAT or APDU variety, and once again, has an FO who is now using a laser or GPS system. Using laser or GPS guidance with a standard HE or even a FASCAM against enemy troop concentrations is inherently dangerous and unlikely since the FO would have to be close enough paint a target with a laser or range it with GPS and may leave the FO in the burst radius. In either case, so long as a target doens't move too far this is still a viable, if not expensive, weapon but non-self-propelled ordnance will only correct its travel so much based on time of travel and the elevation/heading parameters from which the round was fired. To get around this, we would need to upgrade to rounds with with some sort of built-in propulsion more akin to an artillery tube-launched missiles. If we get this advanced, however, we're steering more towards a direct engagement role as opposed to the support role in which artillery is so vital. It would be like going back to WWII with the production of "tank-killer" artillery pieces. Any soldier with boots on the ground would be an unhappy camper to learn that his artillery is too busy plinking tanks 8 miles in the opposite direction as opposed to be supporting him against an enemy advance.
In any event, i think the practical usage of such a weapon would be minimal despite its usefulness, at least with artillery. However, if a such a projectile (the more basic, course correction type) was fired from some type of airborne weapons platform (such as the 105mm howitzer mounted in the AC-130 gunship), I could definitely see a more immediate benefit for this system.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
If you look at the picture, that's a shell for a naval gun. Despite a common diameter that is a totally different beast in size, price and mission.
I can see some use for it in the next generation naval guns as planed for DD-X (or whatever the Navy calls them today). With these extremly long ranged guns fired from relatively unstable plattforms without the benefit of good weather/athmosphere forcasts, the added boost in accuracy is a huge benefit. And the relatively small amount of firepower they have will keep the price down
As for the FO problem: While I basically agree that tubes should be kept simple, not all FO's run around on foot. And IIRC quite a few modern tanks can play FO, putting data back to the howitzers by data radio after designating with their laser.
Not sure about In-Service IFV's but some of the beasts in late testing during the 90s had that capability since their equipment included the laser RF and all.
In a SciFi environment we will sure see a lot of the late cold war stuff appear. Like the "cherry picker", basically a Mast Mounted Side for tanks
Still, if one want's fance guided stuff maybe an overgrown missile system like MRLS/MARS is a better target. That leaves tubes and the lighter artillery rockets cheap and available for mass-fire. Stalinorgel anyone?
I can see some use for it in the next generation naval guns as planed for DD-X (or whatever the Navy calls them today). With these extremly long ranged guns fired from relatively unstable plattforms without the benefit of good weather/athmosphere forcasts, the added boost in accuracy is a huge benefit. And the relatively small amount of firepower they have will keep the price down
As for the FO problem: While I basically agree that tubes should be kept simple, not all FO's run around on foot. And IIRC quite a few modern tanks can play FO, putting data back to the howitzers by data radio after designating with their laser.
Not sure about In-Service IFV's but some of the beasts in late testing during the 90s had that capability since their equipment included the laser RF and all.
In a SciFi environment we will sure see a lot of the late cold war stuff appear. Like the "cherry picker", basically a Mast Mounted Side for tanks
Still, if one want's fance guided stuff maybe an overgrown missile system like MRLS/MARS is a better target. That leaves tubes and the lighter artillery rockets cheap and available for mass-fire. Stalinorgel anyone?
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually Guided Artillery has been around for quite a while. The M712 Copperhead was deployed in the early 80s. Granted these use reflected energy designators (laser) as opposed to gps targeting, but if you have the GPS coordinates of your target you hardly need guided artillery. And if you are going to use a forward observer then marking a target with a laser is also easy enough to accomplish. Especially since using a Laser Designator is unlikely to give away your position. (In fact using your radio to call the strike is more likely to give away your position.)
mctesla
SOC-10
Did anyone see the Future Weapons episode on the Excalibur? Custom guided artillery shell with GPS electronics hardened to 12,000G... supposed to be deployed by the US Army in 2006.
Similar threads
