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: Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range
ArtyEngineer    4/19/2006 7:02:41 PM
One of these http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pzh2000/images/pzh2.jpg"> Firing one of these http://www.somchem.co.za/images/misilecu.jpg"> V LAP pdf Link With this charge (Zone 6) http://www.somchem.co.za/images/bimod.jpg"> just achieved a range of 56km, not to shabby IMO. Combine this with the BAE's Course Corrective Fuse to help mitigate some of the range errors inherent to rocket asist projectiles and thats a very respectable system.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
ArtyEngineer    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range   4/19/2006 7:50:51 PM
Even More impressive, a G6 fitted with a 52 Cal tube and firing V LAP achieved 75km !!!!!! with a range probable error of 0.38% Link to Report
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range   4/19/2006 7:57:16 PM
IIRC, 18100meters with M109A3 (39 cal)at Chg. 8 super or Chg. 9. Better than three times the range here. Stupifying to my dinosaur mind!
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range - S-2   4/19/2006 8:04:02 PM
Its pretty damn impressive, and as I mentioned combine this with the relatively cheap Course Corrective Fuse to reduce that 0.38% probable error in range (Which at 75 km is actually quite a bit)to potentiall 0.13 or less and you got some real capabilities. This whole NLOS-C with its 38 cal tube and reduced chamber size which can only take a MACS zone 4 is really really starting to piss me off.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range - S-2   4/19/2006 8:07:36 PM
Are there any negatives to this? A reduced HE charge perhaps to cater for the rocket fuel?
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range - Yimmy   4/19/2006 8:55:49 PM
Got it in 1, you win a cookie ;) That is always the trade off when using rocket assisted munitions, however I dont believe that the explosives technology availabel today is being fully utilised in Artillery shells, it should be able to make a reduced capacity rocket assist shell be just as effective as the HE filled M107 rounds currently used. But I suck at chemistry and have no real knowledge of this aspect of artillery.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range   4/19/2006 11:12:12 PM
I remember back in the days of Desert Shield (late 1990) when Coalition Forces were concerned that their (generally US-designed) artillery systems fell short of matching the ranges of Iraq's Bull-inspired 155mm and 210mm artillery pieces (modeled off the South African G6 SPG gun). But, we ended up counting on our total air dominance (and the fact that Iraqi long range artillery spotting was non-existant) to eliminate that artillery threat. I'm with you on this one, ArtyEngineer: "This whole NLOS-C with its 38 cal tube and reduced chamber size which can only take a MACS zone 4 is really really starting to piss me off." One thing I noticed about defense procurement: so long as a given threat system has a range comfortably outside of Washington DC, it's generally considered a low priority (notice how the first F-22 squadron is based at Langley?). So (in my normal ranting fashion), just like the whole fiasco with body armor and up-armored vehicles in Iraq (the necessity was there before we went it, it just took several hundred death to convince WA DC), my guess is our politicians and DoD shot-callers won't make land-based long range artillery a priority until our troops come under fire from someone who did invest in long range artillery. (I couldn't care less if G-MLRS can do it: we don't have a thousand launchers in service, and an M270 isn't all that far behind Crusader's suggested service weight.) Always amazes me how many people get on here (SP) and tout just how far advanced the US is above everyone else, yet our slippin' @sses can't even match the artillery ranges of others (It's not you, dude! It's The System!.) If BAe gets approval to buy a stake in DENEL, maybe you can request a transfer...?
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range   4/20/2006 7:17:51 AM
AE Does it come in a ICM configuration? DT If weight is the issue then this vehicle doesn't fit the bill either....it weighs in at about the same as the Crusader. If you want lighter weight you give up some range. As for what we have in the field....the AARs of OIF showed that the US artillery system worked exceptionally well and that the M109A6 did a great job. Arty units were getting fires on target in less than a minute with great results. As for F-22...Langley has, by tradition, gotten the first new fighter for the Air Force for decades.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range - DT & AR   4/20/2006 2:56:20 PM
DT, I would love to go play down in S Africa with the Denel Boys, BAE Land Systems South Africa alread make the chassis for the G6, and guys I know have gone down there to integrate an AS90 Braveheart Turrent onto the G6, they said that vehicle can "Haul Ass". AR I do not believe the V LAP comes in an ICM varient, combining Rocket assist and Cargo Carrying rounds is problematic, Excalibur had a lot of problems getting the Rocket Motor to seperate. Some day our reliance on "Air" is goin to bite us in the ass big style. By the way, I wasnt advocating that we procure the PzH2000 and some Denel ammo and charges, merely illustrating the focus that other artillery developers have on range.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range   4/20/2006 7:52:44 PM
AR, ->"If weight is the issue then this vehicle doesn't fit the bill either....it weighs in at about the same as the Crusader." I wasn't suggesting procuring the PzH2000. I'm just trying to make the statement that, weight-wise, the nearest system we have to match or exceed its range, the M270A1 MLRS, still tips the scales close to 30 tons, which means it will still use the same air mobility assets as a Crusader would have: C-5s and C-17s. And with the weight restrictions having been generally revoked/removed for the FCS program (no longer must adhere to C-130 weight limitations), to move them in by air (NLOS-C) will mean using the same aircraft (I don't count on the USAF buying A400Ms), and there still is no on-paper (blueprints drawn up) confirmed replacement for the C-130 series that will effectively hoof the >20ton FCS with relative ease and safety. ->"If you want lighter weight you give up some range. And what I would be curious to see, for the weight savings the M777 may offer over an M198 (which soldiers and Marines have familiarized themselves with how to use it, deploy it, and manhandle it for a couple decades), if we made an M777 at the same weight as an M198, how many more calibers would it be instead of 38? 45? 52? Enough that we could have easily achieved maximum charge/range and matched anybody else? ->"As for what we have in the field....the AARs of OIF showed that the US artillery system worked exceptionally well and that the M109A6 did a great job. Arty units were getting fires on target in less than a minute with great results. And since Crusader was axed, and AE clearly has stated numerous times the M777 just cannot and will not match other systems' maximum ranges (and especially now, not even when firing expensive Excaliburs), then I guess the Paladin will at some point have to become an -A7, perhaps even evolve into an -A8 model, to incorporate a longer-ranged tube to keep pace with adversaries. As for "getting fires on target in less than a minute with great results", big deal. Fortunately for us, we're fighting relatively primitive enemies (as far as tactical hardware they can field against us). But I fear too many people are succumbing to the foolish notion that we'll always have the upper hand and no one will ever get an edge over on the mighty US ever again. But if someone else does, all the speed in the world won't matter for squat for our artillery coming into action if it can't match the range of the enemy shooting at us in the first place (we'll just wait the several minutes-1/4 of an hour for the nearest USAF/USN aerial assets to get their tails moving and drop useful ordnance on target in a timely manner). Fortunately for us, we haven't been taught that lesson the hard way in a long time (not since WW2 or maybe Korea). ->"As for F-22...Langley has, by tradition, gotten the first new fighter for the Air Force for decades. And as I said, "so long as a given threat system has a range comfortably outside of Washington DC...", that means the politicians sleep more soundly at night, knowing they're among the best protected people in the nation. So what if troops out in front don't- it's their job to serve, suffer, and die (and ideally, never question the logic or reasoning of their superiors hiding back in the safety of Washington, occasionally only needing to dodge the "bullets" posed upon them by concerned citizens and the media). (And as far as I'm concerned, no, politicians- fearlesss leaders my @ss- don't deserve any greater protection or security than any other taxpaying, contributing citizen, especially considering some of the behavior many of them are guilty of, such as deciding troops don't really need additional protection until enough of them have died because of a lack of it, resulting in voting constituents threatening to vote said politicians out of office if nothing is done to remedy the situation.) Perhaps only when a Congressman is visiting troops in the field, and the area comes under surprise long-range fire, and the superiors ask, "Why aren't we shooting back right now, right away?", and the troops reply, "Because we don't have enough long-range counter-battery systems to do it with right now, right away", and the politicians ask, "Why aren't you using all those expensive Air Force weapons?", and the Army soldiers say, "Because, as Army, we can only request USAF support, but their FACs must authorize it as we are not allowed to order them where to drop stuff", and the politicians ask, "Why is that?", and the troops say, "If we had more of our own long range artillery, which more of us have authority over to call in fire support missions as we need them, maybe then we wouldn't be so dependent on USAF and could do more stuff more cheaply and more effectively, sir, and you wouldn't have to fear be shelled like we always do", maybe then something positive will finall
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Artillerys Holy Grail.....Range   4/21/2006 10:39:15 AM
Langley is home to the 1st Fighter Wing....always has been. It was put there to defend the Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Portsmouth Naval base....not DC (That was Bolling AFB). So the F22 to the 1 FW is a long standing tradition. It also makes sense since the first squadron service aircraft always has a teething problem...and this puts it plenty close to the aerospace industry on the James Peninsula to keep it flying. Effective fires on target in less than a minute is no big deal!!?!?!?! Are you nuts? This is incredible. I agree we need a tube artillery capability which can outrange the bad guys....it just hasn't been a US Army method. Crusader did but as you pointed out it put it into a heavy package. Have the gunners at the FA School put the long range requirments into the MNS for FCS NLOS? If they didn't then don't blame industry.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics