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: Just hangin' out
neutralizer    5/31/2008 6:34:47 AM
It seems the usually vigilant contributors to this list missed this one http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/publications/doc_wsw//Fire%20shadow%20-%20eng%20.pdf released a week or so ago. For artillery it's probably one of the more signifciant events of the last decade. It's part of the UK's Indirect Fire Precision Attack program (IFPA) for artillery munitions (other announced elements include GMLRS and Smart155 SFM, and something Excalibur like is widely expected). Other sources give Fire Shadow 150 km range as well as 10 hrs loiter. Arguably well suited to general support but perhaps a little excessive for close support. No doubt smaller performance variants will emerge. The important thing about this is the man in loop forward controller (artillery observers - not forgetting that UK has arty SF) on the ground. In addition to the prototype trials, other (off line) sources have revealed that field trials have been taking place using simulated launchers to develop the organisation and procedures for the operating batteries. It also seems that a 2011 IOC is expected, very fast development. It may be that this has influenced UK's recent decision not to proceed with LIMAWS(R)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
flamingknives       5/31/2008 11:34:55 AM
I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that the LIMAWS(R) was not cancelled for the Loitering Munition.
If anything, I would say the budget crunch of fighting two wars on a peacetime budget was the main culprit, exacerbated by the Army managing to get M270 into operation in Helmand.

The LM doesn't really do anything that GMLRS doesn't.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/1/2008 12:19:15 AM

I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that the LIMAWS(R) was not cancelled for the Loitering Munition.
If anything, I would say the budget crunch of fighting two wars on a peacetime budget was the main culprit, exacerbated by the Army managing to get M270 into operation in Helmand.

The LM doesn't really do anything that GMLRS doesn't.


Apart from have twice the range of the current GMLRS, loiter over a potential target area and be given the direct  'execute' order by the guy eyeballing a target so that the warhead could arrive within tens of seconds.  In other words it has direct fire response times.  It's true there have been trials to provide terminal guidance for GMLRS to solve the problem of the target that moves while the msl is in flight but this doesn't deal with the overall response time.
 
LM may not have been the cause of LIMAWS(R) cancellation but that doesn't mean it wasn't a factor.  For example, if the LM team had said that to launch from LIMAWS(R) would be possible but it might cause a sub-optimal LM design with adverse cost implications then MoD's enthusiasm for LIMAWS(R) would be reduced.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       6/1/2008 8:14:04 AM
Twice the range is good, but unless you've got one out there already, flight time is huge.

If the LM can't be launched from LIMAWS, then it can't be launched from M270 either, since the interface is the same for both.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/2/2008 4:38:58 AM
The concept of an LM is to position them in the air in the expected vicinity of targets before you need them.  Of course if targets don't appear you've done your dough so to speak.  But 10 hrs hangin' gives a bit of leeway and you can always reposition if the clocks ticking.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       6/3/2008 8:19:43 PM
The USAF will throw a fit and insist a flight plan  for each fire mission be provided in time for the Air Tasking Order published 48 hours in advance. 
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       6/12/2008 1:04:05 PM
What's the warhead like? And what would they be used for? For instance could you stick 50 of them up in the air and knock out an advancing armoured regiment long before they got close to you?
 
Surely the Fire Shadow is complementary to LIMAWS(R) rather than a replacement. For instance I could see 2 or three salvoes from a LIMAWS(R) battery being used to splat a dug in infantry regiments (i.e Argentines at Goose Green, or Iraqi border defenses), but I can't see Fire Shadow doing that. Or have I got it wrong? 
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/13/2008 6:33:21 AM
The raises the issue of mensuration and precision.  It seems to have become apparant (I would have said it was obvious years ago) that preciosn munitions suchas GMLRS and Excalibur require a target accurately fixed in space (mensuration) and time.  The problem is that enemies tend to be uncooperative, very inconsiderate I know.  The ability to cope with a moving target until the last fraction of a second is therefore important.  It can be achieved by sensors on the munition (eg 155mm SFM such as Smart155) or by a terminal controller using somthing such as a laser designator or even target tracking with an oriented LRF automatically transmitting continously upadte mensuration to the munition, I'm not entirely convinced that this is a good solution.
 
LIMAWS(R) was a launcher not a munition. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       6/13/2008 12:53:20 PM
Yes, one can see its utility against time-dependent targets. I also think that such weapons are making the massed armoured attacks (Soviet style) of the past completely outdated.
 
As a matter of interest, is the US or other countries developing similar weapons. And if not, why not?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics