NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Artillery Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Cheap, Compact And Smart

September 22, 2009: The U.S. Army has successfully tested a new, inexpensive, guided mortar shell. The RCGM (Roll-Controlled Guided Mortar) works by using a special fuze that includes a GPS unit and little wings that move to put the 120mm mortar shell closer to the target than it otherwise would be. Thus all you need to convert existing 120mm mortar shells to RCGM is the RCGM fuzes (which handle the usual fuze functions, as in setting off the explosives in the shell, as well as the guidance functions.)

Now that the army knows RCGM works, the manufacturer (General Dynamics) has to refine it for greatest accuracy and reliability, and a price the army can justify. All troops would do to use RCGM, would be to put each fuse into device that would transfer the target GPS coordinates, then fire the shell. It would also be possible to program each fuze once it is screwed into the shell, via a metal probe that would go into a hole in the fuze, transfer the data, and signal that that the transfer was accurately made.

In any event, guided 120mm shells just got a lot cheaper and easier to use. This is particularly crucial for 120mm mortars, which are used by units close to the front lines, where not a lot of ammo can be carried, and resupply is riskier since the enemy is so close. Thus a guided 120mm shell means fewer shells getting fired to get the job done. And RCGM is not the first attempt to produce a guided 120mm mortar round. There are several, and there another American guided mortar shell project already being tested.

Two years ago, the U.S. sent laser guided 120mm mortar rounds to Iraq and Afghanistan for testing. The XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition had been in development for twelve years, and was almost cancelled at least once because of the delays. The 38 pound XM395 round has a range of 7.5 kilometers, and will land within three feet of where the laser is pointed. Unguided mortar shells cannot put the first round that close, and requires firing several rounds, and adjusting aim, before you get one on the target. A guided mortar round is very useful in urban warfare, where a miss will often kill civilians. The 120mm mortar round has about five pounds of explosives, compared to 15 pounds in a 155mm shell. The smaller explosive charges limits collateral damage to civilians. The XM395 began arriving in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, but wide distribution of the XM395 is not expected until next year. Each round costs about $40,000, much more than RCGM is expected to cost.

Every U.S. infantry battalion is equipped with 120mm mortars.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INTELLIGENCE: The Great Afghan Pile On


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Vulture       9/22/2009 11:35:11 AM
Think about a Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier with it's onboard networking and these  RCGM rounds.   With some firing software (priority , stryker movement, and whatnot) , this sucker would be  devastating.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Get an Editor   9/22/2009 4:48:17 PM
Every US infantry battalion is not equipped with 120mm mortars.  Most use 81mm.  A 120mm guided mortar round will be very useful.  Getting it down to 81mm will be extremely useful.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    LB   9/22/2009 5:37:08 PM

Every US infantry battalion is not equipped with 120mm mortars.  Most use 81mm.  A 120mm guided mortar round will be very useful.  Getting it down to 81mm will be extremely useful.

Well 120's definitely exist at Battalion level in the Mech infantry world.  Each M2 Equipped  Battalion has either 6 or 8 Mortar Carriers. 
Now within the Motorised world of teh IBCT's Im not entirely sure but I believe the 120's live in the Weapons Company of each Battalion or maybe the HHC's Mortar Platoon has 120's.,  need to dig up some TO&E's to be sure.
 
Regards
 
Arty
 
Quote    Reply

blkfoot       9/22/2009 9:21:48 PM

Ok, since the older munitions has to be "Adjested" what if the first round fired was Laser or RGCM and then all the following tubes adjused from that Primary firing tube's information. Most of the Sighting and deflection would come from that tube's system...

Somebody correct me if thats wrong, but, doesn't it sound like that would be more effective, one expensive round followed with Corrected sighting dope for the regular cheaper munition firing tubes, then fire for effect?

 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    blkfoot   9/22/2009 9:49:02 PM

Ok, since the older munitions has to be "Adjested" what if the first round fired was Laser or RGCM and then all the following tubes adjused from that Primary firing tube's information. Most of the Sighting and deflection would come from that tube's system...


Somebody correct me if thats wrong, but, doesn't it sound like that would be more effective, one expensive round followed with Corrected sighting dope for the regular cheaper munition firing tubes, then fire for effect?



I dont quite get what you are proposing.  If our "Adjusting Piece" doesnt shoot a non guided round which follows a ballistic trajectory based on the best date available with regards to Tube location, Target Location, Non Standard Conditions etc then you have nothing to make adjustments with!!!!!
Regards
 
Arty
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Infantry   9/23/2009 3:21:34 AM
Firstly the article was not limited to the US Army- it states "every US infantry battalion is equipped with 120mm mortars" which I said was not so and that most use 81mm.  All Marine, airborne, air assault, and light battalions use 81mm.  The Stryker battalions have 120mm mortar carriers but these also carry 81mm for dismounted operations at batt (each company has 2 mortar carriers that have 60mm mortars for dismounted ops- afaik).  Certainly if you wish to define infantry as including mechanized infantry, which does not always make sense, then most so defined US Army units have 120mm mortars.  The article is still wrong.
 
Moreover, my point was that the guys with the least support, the actual leg infantry, would most benefit from a guided mortar round in 81mm.  A mechanized infantry battalion has many more precision assets available both organically and able to be called.  An 81mm mortar round is about 9 lbs vs about 29 lbs for a 120mm.  Guided 120mm mortar rounds are going to be wonderful for heavy and Stryker brigades but it's the actual infantry most in need of precision organic support.
 
On paper a mechanized infantry battalion has 216 dismounts.  The doctrine used is created at Fort Knox at the Armor Center not at Benning.  I believe current doctrine is to mix the arm and mech batt in the brigade to create a combined arms battalion.  You'll forgive me for regarding these mixed battalions of 108 dismounts as not being an infantry battalion.
 


Every US infantry battalion is not equipped with 120mm mortars.  Most use 81mm.  A 120mm guided mortar round will be very useful.  Getting it down to 81mm will be extremely useful.



Well 120's definitely exist at Battalion level in the Mech infantry world.  Each M2 Equipped  Battalion has either 6 or 8 Mortar Carriers. 


Now within the Motorised world of teh IBCT's Im not entirely sure but I believe the 120's live in the Weapons Company of each Battalion or maybe the HHC's Mortar Platoon has 120's.,  need to dig up some TO&E's to be sure.

 

Regards

 

Arty



 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/23/2009 4:14:56 AM

Think about a Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier with it's onboard networking and these  RCGM rounds.   With some firing software (priority , stryker movement, and whatnot) , this sucker would be  devastating.

It would be better yet if they could get the Dragon Fire II approved for production.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko    Deviation   9/23/2009 8:49:57 AM
Does anyone know how much this gadget can make the mortar shell  deviate from its natural flight path? As a percentage, in relation to the used amount of propellants and trajectory angle of course. Just whereabouts. Could you shoot separate targets, and how far apart in a row without changing aim?
 
I kind of understood the abovementioned idea of the fuze sending right corrections back to the calculators. In theory it could count and separate for example weather impact on its way up and make a mirror image of those conditions to calculate the effect on its way down (because it would be already steering the shell). Like "I know where I'm headed and know where I'm supposed to be headed, so here's the difference". It would only take a GPS in the fuze, no steering wings at all to make this work.
 
Only problem being that mortar shells do most of their damage on the first simultaneous set of hits. After that its just suppression. A "forward observing" mortar shell would take away some work from the actual forward obs and automize the process, but would not increase the body count in the receiving end. It would decrease the human error factor, but also make the FO-team less capable due to lack of experience in case the magic gadgets run out. That when considering human operated mortars...
 
Then again, if an automated mortar system (Patria AMOS being the only one I'm even slightly familiar with) would be using the magic fuze, then it would have time to get the corrections as the first fired shell would give all needed data already on its way up, fix the barrels in the right direction and THEN put a few dozen dumb shells in exactly the right place in the first big bang. You'd probably only need one GPS-shell fired from one vehicle, and the entire battery could do a follow-up. That would be bit more cost effective, since regular shells aren't free either.
 
Mikko
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    General Dynamics Roll Control   9/23/2009 4:16:37 PM
Ha!
I knew we'd discussed something like this before...here.
 
There's a pic of the concept/prototype 81mm RCFC, next to the last post on the first page.
 
It could well be that they (General Dynamics) have been able to launch-harden it in a round the size of 120mm, but for 81mm the mechanisms and components could be too sensitve at that smaller size, I don't know.
 
In trying to find where we'd discussed this technology before, I found another thread we had on various bomb tech in which I suggested such a kit (this RCFC/RCGM would be perfect, now that it has a name) could be used to create even smaller precision bombs with very low cllateral damage risks.
I had proposed something like those little practice bombs (see the little blue guys here and here), that probably wouldn't have much more lethality than a hand grenade or 60mm mortar bomb.
But if we can drop it thru a window where we know a hostile is (like a sniper),
without destroying the surrounding rooms which may harbor noncombatants, 
then that alone brings a much-appreciated utility to our weapons options.
 
If it fits a thicker-walled 81mm mortar bomb in tests,
perhaps we should try mounting something like that
into a more potent 84mm SMAW, or AT4/Carl Gustav series rounds (thinner walled than a mortar shell) 
and dropping them from those small UAVs that can't carry bigger PGMs Hellfires?
Since we don't need to launch-harden the system to fire from gun tubes or high-impulse rocket motors,
this would be the perfect tech to create miniature bombs (and the USMC, at least, swears by the capabilities of its SMAW launchers).
 
The only catch to using the RCFC/RCGM technology for minibombs is that we'd need
a new interfaced carrier design (that MALTS there in those pratice bomb links would be a good starting point to refine the necessary components) 
to allow for the passing of data to the munition, since we obviously can't attach a nose fuze programmer to it before firing.
 
I'm still ever-curious as to just how small the tech can be yet still be functional.
Even the warhead section of a 66mm LAW rocket isn't out of the question (judging by the mechanism in this picture of the 81mm RCFC), another possible weapon to use from small UAVs...
 
Just in case anyone missed the pic from before,
and to save going back thru links to find it again,...
(81mm RCFC demo).
 
 
(pic courtsey of DefenseIndustryDaily.Com,...)
 
Quote    Reply

C3I2       9/24/2009 12:17:20 AM
The 120mm mortar round has about five pounds of explosives, compared to 15 pounds in a 155mm shell.
 
I seem to recall, arty folks telling me 120mm mortar shells carrying about the same amount of explosives as 155mm artillery (howitzer) shells. As the latter have to take a lot more stress (have thicker walls etc). Anyone who can fact check this?
 
I'm really interested in how more economical mortars are compared to traditional tube artillery also, if anyone seen public data on that?
 
Quote    Reply

LB    120mm ammo   9/24/2009 7:27:09 AM
You might be thinking of 120mm mortar ammo vs 105mm howitzer ammo as these are often directly compared in performance.  I think the US M934 120mm mortar round has 6.6 lbs of comp B which I think is a bit more than the 5.8 lbs in the M913 and M927 105mm.
 
The 120mm mortar round has about five pounds of explosives, compared to 15 pounds in a 155mm shell.

 

I seem to recall, arty folks telling me 120mm mortar shells carrying about the same amount of explosives as 155mm artillery (howitzer) shells. As the latter have to take a lot more stress (have thicker walls etc). Anyone who can fact check this?

 

I'm really interested in how more economical mortars are compared to traditional tube artillery also, if anyone seen public data on that?

 
Quote    Reply

Mil-Tech Bard       9/27/2009 12:27:16 PM
The US Army has add-on GPS guidance fuses for 105mm howitzers in the pipeline, based on the existing 155mm GPS fuses, see the link below.
 
If there are 120mm mortar fuses, they can be placed on 81mm by the same sorts of miniaturization as the photo in quotes below shows.
 
 Orders of magnitude mean things.  The deployment of this "GPS fuse"  -- think of them as JDAM kits for artillery and mortar shells -- is the firepower equivalent of going from 1870's machine gun unit deployment deployment to late WWI levels of machine gun deployment.  That is, going from machine gun as a "regimental gun" for 8000-1200 men to platoon heavy support weapon for 40 men, virtually over night.

The US Military's ground forces have developed tactical operations centers at brigade, battalion and increasingly at company level that are multi-media and can direct both UAV's and ground based video/laser tracking and targeting.  They are already using 155mm Excalibur and 227mm GMLRS rockets to engage targets urban targets due to their speed of flight, smaller collateral damage and shorter engagement time due to shorter coordination time, compared to USAF close air support.  Most of the "Close air support" in 2006 in Iraq was in fact GMLRS fire missions.

The deployment of the GPS fuse to mortars means that those battalion and company TOCs can engage targets out of line of sight with precision guided munitions from organic means without the time taken to call higher level chain of command. This is *extremely* important because every level of authority required to make a decision doubles the amount of time it takes to make one.

The "Kill chain," to use the modern term of art, with GPS fused mortars is roughly double the ballistic flight time of a GPS mortar shell in combat. 

That speed, rate, and volume of indirect fire PGM engagement will elevate American ground forces fire power, compared to the current Russian or Chinese Army's, to roughly that of the Imperial British Army versus the Zulus or the Dervishes.

This development will not only humbug the whole modern close air support paradigm.  It may make humbug the "Missiles in a box" NLOS-LS from the FCS program as well.

I know GPS fuses on Naval 5-inch guns are going to make the USMC ANGLICO teams very happy.  Hell, a single USMC MEU could stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan _by itself_ with organic artillery and mortars firing nothing but GPS fused cluster bomblet shells.

105mm to 155mm link below:
 
link />

ATK Demonstrates Precision Guidance Capabilities For 105mm Artillery


by Staff Writers
Minneapolis MN (SPX) Aug 12, 2008

Alliant Techsystems has announced that it has successfully demonstrated the capability to divert a 105mm artillery round using its existing 155mm Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) with minimal modification to the current design.
 
 
Ha!

I knew we'd discussed something like this before...here.

 

There's a pic of the concept/prototype 81mm RCFC, next to the last post on the first page.

 

It could well be that they (General Dynamics) have been able to launch-harden it in a round the size of 120mm, but for 81mm the mechanisms and components could be too sensitve at that smaller size, I don't know.

 

In trying to find where we'd discussed this technology before, I found another thread we had on various bomb tech in which I suggested such a kit (this RCFC/RCGM would be perfect, now that it has a name) could be used to create even smaller precision bombs with very low cllateral damage risks.

I had proposed something like those little practice bombs (see the little blue guys here and here), that probably wouldn't have much more lethality than a hand grenade or 60mm mortar bomb.

But if we can drop it thru a window where we know a hostile is (like a sniper),

without destroying the surrounding rooms which may harbor noncombatants, 

then that alone brings a much-appreciated utility to our weapons options.

 

If it fits a thicker-walled 81mm mortar bomb in tests,

perhaps we should try mounting something like that

into a more potent 84mm SMAW, or AT4/Carl Gustav series rounds (thinner walled than a mortar shell) 

and dropping them from those small UAVs that can't carry bigger PGMs Hellfires?

Since we don't need to launch-harden the system to fire from gun tubes or high-impulse rocket motors,

this would be the perfect tech to create miniature bombs (and the USMC, at least, swears by the capabilities of its SMAW launchers).

 

The only catch to using the RCFC/RCGM technology for minibombs is that we'd need

a new interfaced carrier design (that MALTS there in those pratice bomb links would be a good starting point to refine the necessary components) 

to allow for the passing of data to the munition, since we obviously can't attach a nose fuze programmer to it before firing.

 

I'm still ever-curious as to just how small the tech can be yet still be functional.

Even the warhead section of a 66mm LAW rocket isn't out of the question (judging by the mechanism in this picture of the 81mm RCFC), another possible weapon to use from small UAVs...

 

Just in case anyone missed the pic from before,

and to save going back thru links to find it again,...

(81mm RCFC demo).

 


 

(pic courtsey of DefenseIndustryDaily.Com,...)


 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy