Thanks to StrategyPage (Mr. Dunnigan?), we have an answer. Cost. I believed that a "smart" artillery shell along with SP Artillery would be a "cheaper" platform than an aircraft with a PGM. I was wrong. Seems the aircraft as a PGM platform is cheaper as well as more "cost-effective". Thats a hard thing to understand, but the summary spelled it out clear enough.

Shaka, The US Army is supposed to be working the kinks out of a 120mm mortar launched fire-and-forget PGM that should be rather nasty for enemy point targets. I assume final performance will be superior to the Swedish 120mm STRIX, unless NIH strikes again. For that matter, I can't recall if they ended up cancelling TERM (120mm tank gun smart round) or not. Strangely, 155mm seems neglected in all this talk. Copperhead is well thought of, but my understanding is actual procurement was sort of skimpy.

You read my mind. If they are doing a 120mm PGM ... is this top attack, or is this that TERM you referred to? ... where is the 155mm in all of this? 120mm has the bang of a 105mm, so it can replace that. Where is my 155mm? Or... considering the BB debate, with the Navy is moving towards missiles, does that mean that the military is going away from a gun concept? In other words, is the 155mm being replaced by the MLRS?

The 120mm mortar round will be a top-attacker. When the US Army tested the British Merlin (81mm PGM) and Swedish STRIX (120mm) the latter was reputed to be quite nasty -- in through the top and blow out the bottom of the target tanks (M48s and M60s if I remember right). I'm not sure what TERM was supposed to look like -- my guess would be a shoot-down top attack like TOW 2B, Javelin, etc., but I don't know if that program got (or will get -- again, I can't remember if it got canned) far enough to have capabilities decided on. Not sure where 155mm is. Lovely stuff, would hate to think it is deemed to be going the way of the dinosaur.

The 155 stuff has been around for awhile. Depending on what you classify as "Smart". Old school is copperhead, Laser guided antitank round that will punch through ANY armored vehicle in service, with room to spare. SADARM, top attack millimeter radar activated munition is now in production. Excalibur, GPS/INS guided extended range DPICM is in E&MD. There is talk of a BAT round. FSCAM (RAMMs and ADAM) may be considered smart projectiles since they dispurse a self distruct minefield. Rockets will never replace tube artillery. Not enough munition options. No HE, Smoke, WP,Illum ... ICN/DPICM is not the godsend that some think. It has terrain restrictions that make it pretty useless except on flat hard surfaces.

Sam speaks the truth. I read an afetr action report from the 3rd Infantry Division. 3rd DIVARTY stated they shot a lot more improved HE and rocket assisted HE than DPICM because of duds, UXO, etc. risk. Fired some SADARM and found it VERY effective. Didn't find much use for COPPERHEAD. Hard to use and not worth the effects. Big push is for more flexible MLRS round

Dear Albany Rifles: Please translate your last post.

Thomas, I'll try to translate. What I tried to say was that I had just read the after action report from the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq. What was a surprise to find out was that the artillery fired less PGM and actually fired more standard High Explosive/High Explosive Rocket assisted than dual purpose improved conventional ammunition (DPICM). It turns out that the bomblets in the DPICM had a high precentage of duds which is not good if you are going to occupy the area you just shot at. The biggest lesson leaned from the divison artillery commander was the need for a PGM for the MLRS that is not the ATACMS missile. ATACMS are usually reserved by corps in the US Army. ALso, I believe Shaka or Sam mentioned the COPPERHEAD, a laser guided 155MM anti-tank round. IT has been in the US inventory since late 1970s/early 1980s and primarily used by the US's XVIII Ariborne Corps (82 ABN DIV, 101st ABN DIV, 10 MTN DIV & 3d INF DIV (MECH)) to augment the anti-tank power of the corps. But it is not the easiest round to employ (don't ask me why).. What the field artillery community is asking for is a PGM 155MM HE round for their tube artillery Hope this helps

The reason that copperhead is so hard to employ are many. Control fins often fail to deploy, The seeker head has a small field of view, designator has to be in right place to designate in relation to the gun-tgt line. Less than 45 degrees left or right. And the lasers are degraded in periods of low visibility. Such as dust storms, smoke, heavy clouds, rain. For 70s tech not bad. It took us from 600 HE rounds to kill a moving tank to 3 Copperhead

But if we got them, use them, then don't replace them.