Here's the working http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionII/13Fitchat_South_African_COOP.pdf

Thanks DT,

 

thats a nice little brief, the Pro RAM shell does look interesting.  There were a few other good points specifically that "No one has all the Technology"  and that there should be "more industry cooperation."   

 

The South African boys are here in the US at the minute, but Im not entirely sure of what they are doing.  I have a feeling they are showcasing their modular charge system.  hopefully they will bring some of there VLAP's in the near future, I would love to hear some real Probable Errors in Range and Deflection figures for that at its max range.

So would I, as it might wake up our own artillery procurement people into what actually can be done, and much sooner than they think.

 

But unfortunately, artillery was never as sexy as MBTs, fighter jets, attack helos, or brand spankin' new destroyers.

 

I just hope that after the Netherlands gets a couple of their PzH2000s toying around in Afghanistan for a while, US  personnel see the benefits that extended range artillery capabilities offer (as compared to US M198s and M777s), and start hitting home their thoughts, ideas, and complaints to the Brass Back Home.

That might finally be what's needed to get more attention, and investment, in improving our own artillery programs.

And speaking of which, I do think it's a downright shame that there is (privatized & unofficial?) cooperation between US & South Afrikan firms concerning artillery, yet the DoD seems horrendously under-impressed (or just not aware?) at the capabilities the cooperation has achieved so far.

 

Here's another one you might find interesting (105mm), even though you currently seem to be more of a 155mm man.

 

I always get a kick out of hearing debates of "105 can never match the lethality of 155", yet someone else comes around actually promoting low collateral damage artillery ammunition.

Here it is, both in 105mm form: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/northam.pdf

and as 155mm, although they prefer the term "Non-Lethal Personnel Suppression": http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/mccormick.pdf

 

 

Dear God, what's this world coming to? We actually have people out there trying to de-tune weapons' performances as opposed to improving on them?

"Let's send a shell to a target over 20 miles away, but let's reduce its lethality to woeful levels. Hell, maybe we can find a way to actually increase the CEP and we'll miss altogether! (We just want to scare everyone into submission, not kill them all off so there's no one left to submit that we can gloat over!)"

 

(sarcasm off)

Yup, lots of cool stuff over there in those DTIC/NDIA archives...

So would I, as it might wake up our own artillery procurement people into what actually can be done, and much sooner than they think.

 

But unfortunately, artillery was never as sexy as MBTs, fighter jets, attack helos, or brand spankin' new destroyers.

 

I just hope that after the Netherlands gets a couple of their PzH2000s toying around in Afghanistan for a while, US  personnel see the benefits that extended range artillery capabilities offer (as compared to US M198s and M777s), and start hitting home their thoughts, ideas, and complaints to the Brass Back Home.

That might finally be what's needed to get more attention, and investment, in improving our own artillery programs.

And speaking of which, I do think it's a downright shame that there is (privatized & unofficial?) cooperation between US & South Afrikan firms concerning artillery, yet the DoD seems horrendously under-impressed (or just not aware?) at the capabilities the cooperation has achieved so far.

 

Here's another one you might find interesting (105mm), even though you currently seem to be more of a 155mm man.

 

I always get a kick out of hearing debates of "105 can never match the lethality of 155", yet someone else comes around actually promoting low collateral damage artillery ammunition.

Here it is, both in 105mm form: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/northam.pdf

and as 155mm, although they prefer the term "Non-Lethal Personnel Suppression": http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/mccormick.pdf

 

 

Dear God, what's this world coming to? We actually have people out there trying to de-tune weapons' performances as opposed to improving on them?

"Let's send a shell to a target over 20 miles away, but let's reduce its lethality to woeful levels. Hell, maybe we can find a way to actually increase the CEP and we'll miss altogether! (We just want to scare everyone into submission, not kill them all off so there's no one left to submit that we can gloat over!)"

 

(sarcasm off)

Yup, lots of cool stuff over there in those DTIC/NDIA archives...

I suspect any US long range cannon in the next fifteen years will come from USN research.  Which brings up a vision of the USMC designing the next long range cannon artillery ; )

DT,

 

I wouldnt say that the industry cooperation is "Unofficial" as the State Department has to be aware of it to ensure no Import/Export Violations occur.  So I am sure the the appropriate Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA's) are in place.  Its just that these cooperative ventures are not in support of a US program. 

I have to say that I am VERY surprised to see the lethality comparison between the two rounds as displayed on page 29 in an open source document, especially as actual area numbers are quoted and given a scale by the addition of the soccer field!!!!!  That type of information is usually restricted.