Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: XM 982 Excalibur
ArtyEngineer    12/16/2005 12:29:47 PM
Did another Excalibur shoot yesterday out of the M777, awesome results!!! Test was to use Firefinder to detect a mortar, determin firing location, transmit coordinates to Excalibur and engage ASAP. 22.8 Km down range miss distance......not a lot!!!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Sabre    RE:XM 982 Excalibur - cool stuff -Sabre   4/28/2006 2:01:30 PM
Haha, yeah, good call, doggtag! The "loiter" time of artillery is infinitely better! ...and much easier/practical for the average grunt to call up.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Artillery vs Air Support   4/28/2006 5:47:14 PM
The primary advantage of air support is range. A wing or group can cover a vast area from a single base. There can be comparisons made between the cost of a tactical air group and the equivalent purchase of artillery. This would probably show that the artillery could be spread out to cover tha same approximate area, with similar combat power. The next advantage of the aircraft would be the ability to concentrate the entire group on a single target area in just a few hours. Packing up the equivalent number of artllery battalions from across the corps or army AO and concentrating them is far slower. Of course when the arty battalions are all in range it takes just a few minutes to concentrate their fires in a single strike. Coming back to range; the air group can shift from CAS to deep strikes or interdiction. The arty is limited to a few dozen kilometers for the deep missions. Psyche. For some reason air strikes seem to terrify, unhinge mentally, or panic soldiers better than artillery. The noisier the aircraft & bombs the better. This effect is not trivial. Decisivly won battles always have a panicked unit as some critical point.
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre    RE:Artillery vs Air Support   5/2/2006 9:18:37 AM
Obviously I am biased towards Artillery, over Air Support. One big advantage that I would point to, in the Artillery's favor, is a true all-weather capability. The response time, as has been mentioned earlier, is not just much better, it is often the difference between life and death. The range question isn't quite as bad as it at first appears, given the ATACMs-equipped MLRS, especially considering that an MLRS or HIMARS battery can be plopped down with the Airborne infantry battalion that has, at least at times, been used to secure some sort of FOB for Spec Ops. It would range most targets just as well as bombers flying from bases 1000s of kilometers away. Of course, in Iraq, Spec Ops requested, and got a M1 tank company in addition to that infantry battalion, and people still talk about the coming "extinction" of the tank far more often. Given its massive budget, the Air Force seems to have little reason to fear extinction. I'm not sure the Artillery can be that comfortable. The real problem that I see is that politico's in Washington will see Artillery as dinosaurs, and decide to divest the Army of it (or simply not spend money on upgrades, rendering it obsolete and even less useful /effective). While I can't see the Army and its leadership ever embracing that view, now, it's not as far-fetched as some might think. The present Army leadership (I think) has a Spec Ops background. I may be wrong, but Special Ops teams are far more accustomed to using CAS instead of arty. I could see some of them deciding that the Army doesn't need artillery anymore. Then, when we are faced with a military conflict that we have to win
 
Quote    Reply

ShinyTop    RE:Artillery vs Air Support   5/13/2006 6:16:40 PM
People commenting that 3-5 rounds of dumb shells are better are missing one of the key points of guided munitions. You can fire it very close to friendly forces or to locals when you do not want collateral damage or casualties. The lower amount of explosive is actually a plus in those circumstances.
 
Quote    Reply

RT_MEng    RE:XM 982 Excalibur   5/18/2006 1:16:21 PM
The 777 will prove worthwhile after all!! With the use of a 'guided' projo they may be able to hit the proverbial 'barn door at 50 paces'!! The OFC has always proven to be the achilles' heel of the program even with the addition of the 'flawed' DFCS that will be employed in the A1 version.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:XM 982 Excalibur   5/18/2006 2:33:45 PM
Well, that'll get a response. Care to elucidate in the meantime, RT_MEng?
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:XM 982 Excalibur   5/19/2006 10:23:17 AM
Damn right that will get a response, I am busier than hell right now, but can take time to answer to an elaboration on that statement!!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:XM 982 Excalibur   5/27/2006 8:57:53 AM
Doesn't look like you're going to get one, ArtyEngineer. Looks like RT_MEng was just trolling.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:XM 982 Excalibur   5/31/2006 10:37:29 PM
Yep, looks like a drive by trolling, however the points he raised showed he had some familiarity with the program as the OFC has been troublesome I would have like to have explained what the issues really were, how we solved them and how accurate the weapon truely is, and in doing so help correct some preconcieved ideas and opinions based on results obtained during developmental testing
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:XM 982 Excalibur   6/5/2006 11:27:45 AM
Any body see Future Weapons on the Military Channel Last night, one epsiode dealt with "Smart Weapons" and showed my buddies testing the Excalibur at YPG, the deliberate firing of the round 15 Degrees north of the GT line and it still hit within a few yard was pretty cool. Another had a good piece on the PzH 2000. The Germans are very proud of their howitzer.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics