Remember the origins of this design were originally as a submunition (Brilliant Anti Tank), that's the important distinction here, they were supposed to be released from an MLRS rocket and target armor formations. A good idea and potentially more effective than Textron's CBU-97.

 

 

An unguided unit has inevitable range limitations that are to some extent also weather dependent, I've seen no data as to range @ 'n' feet, the delay between release and impact will be a drawback, especially now that a range of guided 70mm rockets and brimstone are mature, having said this It might make sense for lightweight drones although if it weighs 1/2 of a hellfire (source: link above) then it's still ~50lbs vs ~32lbs for the APKWS... 

 

 R 

 

I suppose GPS guidance is not used for moving targets ?

 

DG

 

Five years ago a U.S. Army UAV first used a Viper Strike in combat. Three years ago a GPS guided version of the Viper Strike was introduced. SOCOM spent over $20 million on making Viper Strike work on their AC-130 gunships, in place of the 105mm cannon. But this didn’t work out, yet, even though the use of Viper Strike would allow the AC-130 to fly higher (than required for the 105mm weapon to be used) and be safer from ground fire. Technically, Viper Strike is still "under consideration" for the AC-130.

==================================================================================

The 105mm  ammunition is hugely cheaper than Viper Strike.  And if there isn't any AAA in the area to speak of, there isn't any reason to use a stand-off weapon. 

In the case of an AC-130 it would enable high-density engagement, it's basically just a small glide-bomb, useful for hitting multiple targets near-simultaneously while avoiding collateral damage, the Howitzer can't do that without shells routinely landing tens of meters off target. Think of it as a reasonably cost-effective precision air-raid and the system makes a lot more sense.

 

There's plenty of locations (near a mosque or school or a populated area) where the 105mm would be too risky to use and given the willingness of the various adversaries to embed themselves in such hard-to-target areas there's not many options as it stands to target these from the air, this system. The top-down attack alone is pretty useful in urban clutter, no guided 70mm rocket (that I'm aware of) can achieve this.

 

So I guess at first glance it may seem like a solution in need of a problem but in actual fact it probably does have a range of useful applications, whether the sorts of targets that now present themselves in Afghanistan require this sort of capability I don't know, but from AC-130 footage I've seen it does appear that this is a more practical solution (if collateral damage must be avoided) than firing a Howitzer from an aircraft. Dropped from, a drone the 360deg ground coverage and near vertical attack profile makes it at the very least slightly more flexible than guided rockets even if the delivery speed may be useless for time-sensitive engagement.

 

R 

"Now the air force wants to extend its fixed wing monopoly to include armed UAVs. The army did not agree, and the Pentagon agreed to revise the Key West treaty and allow the army to continue rebuilding the new Army Air Force with larger (20 kg) UAVs."

 

FTAF.  That's right,  F*ck the Air Force and the egos they rode in on re:  "Treaty of Key West".  The very fact that there needed to be a 'treaty' at all is pathetic.  Does the Air Force have MPs?  Gee, maybe these should all be US Army.

 

The Air Force really isn't into CAS anyway, and their polices regarding Pilots as operators for UAVs is indefensible.

 

The Army should put beanie propellors on UAVs and call them rotor wings. 

 

There's plenty of locations (near a mosque or school or a populated area) where the 105mm would be too risky to use and given the willingness of the various adversaries to embed themselves in such hard-to-target areas there's not many options as it stands to target these from the air, this system. The top-down attack alone is pretty useful in urban clutter, no guided 70mm rocket (that I'm aware of) can achieve this.

 

Point taken.   But for "normal" combat, the 105mm is far less expensive.  I'm not suggesting that viper strike isn't potentially very useful - just guns are far cheaper than missiles and/or glide bombs (in this case).

 

 

"Now the air force wants to extend its fixed wing monopoly to include armed UAVs. The army did not agree, and the Pentagon agreed to revise the Key West treaty and allow the army to continue rebuilding the new Army Air Force with larger (20 kg) UAVs."   FTAF.  That's right,  F*ck the Air Force and the egos they rode in on re:  "Treaty of Key West".  The very fact that there needed to be a 'treaty' at all is pathetic.  Does the Air Force have MPs?  Gee, maybe these should all be US Army.   The Air Force really isn't into CAS anyway, and their polices regarding Pilots as operators for UAVs is indefensible.   The Army should put beanie propellors on UAVs and call them rotor wings.

 

The "Chair Force" had (initially) ZERO interest in UAV's and let the army do largely what it wanted, only to belatedly figure out that the UAV train had left the station and now they had to play catch-up.   Then (as usual) they tried to reassert themselves and take over the entire UAV game, which (understandably) PO'd the army in a big way (and the navy as well).

 

The USAF "fighter mafia" has never been reluctant to show its disdain for the ground support and air transport missions, and in the case above they sensed the army was becoming successful with UAVs they (again) reacted badly and demonstrated yet another level of arrogance by implying that other service branches were competent enough to manage the UAVs.

 

IMHO, the "Chair Force" should relinquish the ground support and air transport missions.  And while I don't like the notion of them controlling UAV's, somewhere along the line clear rules for UAV usage and ATC must be worked out, lest the skies become too crowded to be safe.