Did we miss the part where this is airdropped?  What this means is, it works as long as you don't subject it to any shock, e.g. by firing it.  For a no-G-rated guidance package on an 8lb munition, I think another 8lb or so is kinda high, don't you? 

 

And how much will this cost?  If over a grand, let's just hang up the phone.  Whatever GD charges, I swear I can do it for half.  Try modelairplanenews.com for ideas.

 

And while we're at it, what is est. CEP for dumb 81s?

 

...dropped from a UAV?  It's probably best measured in units of football fields.

...about the different strength tolerances needed between being free-fall non-powered ordnance, and gun-fired (or rocket boosted).

 

My take on that it: if it's going to be a pure air-dropped munition, with no concerns over launch boost stresses, why even use an 81mm mortar shell (other than as a proof-of-concept demonstrator), when any number of other designs could create a more effective system?

 

The only real advantage I can see in using a mortar shell would be solely for the fact that the technology was being built with the intention of surviving mortar launch pressures.

If solely as a free-fall weapon, we can make it much simpler and less robust, so to speak, again since we don't require hard launch and high-G maneuvering.

If the latter is the case, then any number of COTS small R/C aircraft designs will suffice, we'd just have to do the math as to how much explosives the design can carry without being too unbalanced in its glide approach.

 

But if we can create the system to work reliably, and cost-effectively, from 81mm mortars, then that's just extra benefit to the units who use 81mm mortars, as they'll need less rounds now to engage a given (point) target.

As to suggesting it be used as a projectile from an aerial mortar: no one uses aircraft-mounted 81mm mortars (then again, there's still some speculation going around as to what might arm a gunship version of the C-27J Spartan Joint Cargo Aircraft...).

If the tech will work for gun-launching in an 81mm caliber, then the tech should be upscalable to utilize with 105mm howitzers (benefit for both AC-130s and any land-based light artillery units).

If it can be mass-manufactured cheaply enough, it could also offer competition to numerous 120mm precision guided mortar rounds.

 

As to any extra weight that such a guidance and control system adds to a standard mortar shell,

it all comes down to the accuracy it can achieve,

will the extra weight cut down the regular shell's range,

and is it cost-effective enough when compared to a larger number of unguided rounds being thrown all over the target area.

Putting a 2-8 pound warhead dead onto a target is still better than landing half a dozen of dumb shells all around the targets with no guarantees of a direct hit.

 

If we don't need it strong enough for gun tube launching, then a thinner-walled munition design would be better suited for air dropping.

We could, theoretically, then get by either with a lighter casing to deliver the same payload, or a similar-weight munition but with more payload. The potential is there we could create a new class of mini- and micro precision bombs that are far lighter, yet carry the equivalent punch of 105, 120, even 155mm artillery rounds.

There's additional info on where this project (81mm RCFC) is at along its development, courtesy of DefenseIndustryDaily.Com...

 

Currently, the "little guy" in question looks like this, mounted in its drop test rig at the tail ramp of an aircraft:

 

Notice that the actual RCFC module, there at the mortar projectile's nose, is smaller in diameter than the 81mm diameter of the shell, with 2 small strakelets/canards visible at the sides (it isn't intended for high-G maneuver, so large control surfaces aren't needed) .

Curious as to how the mechanism actually works.

If I understand right this project has been in the works one way or another for 20 years. At least I have seen some conceptual  form of this in the late 1980s. And the idea is focused on using up OLD stockpiles of ammo instead of destroying them. I am not sure if the 81mm is the biggest aging overstock or just most suitable to prototyping (maybe less damage if it goes astray or least hazard changing fuses).

 

Obviously more than one type of munition is adaptable to the fuse. But perhaps guidance limitations on accuracy or mass will make munitions over a certain size too risky for today's ROE.

I think part of the new fuse is that it can find its own targets within a general area without continual support from spotters.

 

Dumb mortar CEP can be become very bad without constant feedback as to where their shells are landing relative to a target...especially a moving ground target.

 

On the other hand these shells are probably not good for movement over 8mph either -- just not like to have enough steering ability. I also wonder how big of a useful area they initially see.

Well a UAV can mount a laser designator (already do) so that means the precision munition sensor fuse gets a lot cheaper. The new sensors and steering might well work back to the mortar support. Then lasers designator on your little fire team or platoon UAV would be cool. 

 

For arming small UAVs with actual munitions your real problem is first the ammo must be lightweight and then.... How well can a light-weight yet effective bomb or rocket can steer? The more payload mass and lower the attitude (less time) the harder it will be to steer a munition on target. Oversized fins also are difficult to use on small UAVs at low altitude.

 I suspect that means that small or low altitude operating UAVs will not be doing much bombing as they would lack either punch or sufficient munitions delivery steering.

 

Direct vertical bomb drops...maybe if you are thinking undefended fixed objects.  If the target is defended, a 200-500 pound UAV to drop dumb 10 pound bombs (fire RPG?) from low altitude is not going to last long nor payoff. Big UAVs are BIG targets. Oh and you want it to hover motionless for drop like a helio? Easy target. Aren't  the "helios with GPS accuracy" envisioned as dropping on currently undefended bridges and dams in more of a rear area combat engineering role? Fewer engineers needed and safer than artillery especially in PR terms versus friendly fire.

 

For small reusable, low altitude unit level UAVs --- I suspect sniper ability (small high velocity ballistic rockets) and maybe a couple rifle grenades on a rocket (medium velocity) would be the most you could expect for standard infantry company tactical support -- all direct fire and relatively close range (less than 150 meters). Probably several (6-10) UAVs per company though.

 

In fact your most common unit level bomber is likely to be a deposable UAV grenade (also scout firefight) or claymore charge (direct bombing only) that you kamikaze into the target. Once it becomes disposable the UAV airframe costs can go down. Sensors and powerplant remain the same cost as pure scouting.