Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: MINCS(L) AMP048.36 – Army Mortar System Project
BLUIE006    5/31/2009 8:30:06 AM
Army's mortars will also be replaced with a new and more capable system, and the Government will equip our soldiers with new direct-fire anti-armour as well as automatic grenade launcher systems. Any chance this will include a Self propelled mortar system and the XM395 PGMM ?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
doggtag    for what it's worth....   6/14/2009 11:49:56 PM
The pdf offered on the PGMM is an older one: the system depicted at the beginning is/was based on a German program called Bussard, same wingplan and everything, just needed the US gold-plating tacked on to justify a higher price.
In its current propsed form, the M395 PGMM looks nothing like the Bussard.
 
$15K for a 120mm PGMM will never happen, not as a complete from-the-ground-up, purpose built precision munition.
Some sort of PGK-equipped equivalent, certainly (course correction mechanism and actual "dumb" round's combined price).
 
Ask the Swedish where they went with the Strix, certainly wasn't coming in that cheap: mass production just might get that price down, but only after future blocks/iterations work out the technical kinks and find cheaper solutions to fabricating many of the components.
$15K is still asking for a lot of technological miracles in one package in post-year-2000 dollars.
 
As to the USMC's interesting little 120mm: the EFSS Expeditionary Fire Support System,
it consists of four units: two 'pullers", little trucks buggies even smaller than a WW2 Willys Jeep, with one towing an ammo limber and one towing the actual mortar.
Four pieces of equipment just to move one mortar.
What f...'s it up for the USMC is the fact they wanted something internally-portable in their V-22s, which will require two of them to move a complete fully-battle-ready EFSS system (gotta figure in crews and the crews' supllies).
 
If anyone here has ever seen the concepts for the EFSS, there's no room at all for any protectiuon on those little runabouts, other than minimal protection from the elements.
 
In short: a dismal failure.There's better systems out there for the same amount of money the USMC is throwing away into the EFSS.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       6/15/2009 1:54:07 AM
French towed 120mm mortar youtube.com/watch?v=qvWa_plTUB4
 
Stryker 120 mortar carrier w/ recoil youtube.com/watch?v=nA61l_HktlU
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    more on EFSS, PGMM,...   6/15/2009 7:17:34 AM
Here are two articles on what/where the M395 PGMM appears to stand today ( info from ~2006, actually).
2) from Wiki
 
Tried to find a little more on the EFSS, and came up with
1) this pdf (EFSS is seen on page 16 (PM-W pulls actual mortar, PM-T pulls ammo limber and its whopping 24 rounds),
2) this article from National Defense Magazine , which explains the issues in purpose-developing a vehicle/system suitable for internal carriage in the Osprey's cramped confines.
Notice that the two vehicles displayed on the pdf (page 16), obviously it's going to be impossible to fit both of them at the same time into a single V-22.
 
Another issue I'm seeing: I'm under the impression that the PGMM isn't designed for use with rifled mortars in mind, but rather smoothbores so it doesn't spin.
That could be a major issue on the point that it would then require a brand new PGM (or future M395 Block) that allows compatibility with rifled tubes (USMC EFSS).
 
Now if the USMC can achieve that 20km range they're hoping from said mortar (says so in the NDM article),
more power to them.
A mortar with that range capability could almost negate the need for 105mm howitzers.
But again, without some sort of precision at that range, the extra range is pointless.
Carrier rounds containing submunitions and bomblets are certainly an option, but only for area targets.
Then there's the dud factor inherent in all cluster bomb designs, which has lead to some frowning on them (local populace stumbling across the UXOs and getting maimed) and many cluster bombs weapons being removed (or at least withdrawn) from immediate service.
 
Personally I like the idea of such a long range mortar: the possibility here is that the 105mm howitzer and 120mm mortar classes could see a convergence to where we can achieve the greater range (~20km)
but thru a lightweight system to cover with one weapon what currently takes both.
A vehicle-mounted platform obviously could fire the weapon at higher pressures because it can actually be a heavier system.
But infantry will still want their lightweight tubes.
 
Againg though, without sufficient accuracy the farther we fire, extra range means little more than nuisance value, if any at all.
 
There are some other mortar PGM projects out there: I found these two (from 2005, mind you) on Defense-Update.Com also:
1) Fireball ,an Israeli-offered system suggesting rifled and smoothbore compatibility with a range out to 15km.
2) "Mor" - M150/M151 HE-TAG , (Terminal Area Guided) mortar bomb ,another Israeli offering, suggesting up to 9.5km range.
I can't find anything else really as to whether these were pursued further in the last 4 years, or abandoned on cost issues, technical hurdles, or lack of interest (I seriously doubt the last one).
Catch here with any of these is the fact they need forward laser designation (~1m precision certainly makes it worthwhile)
 
If PGK (or any other CCF programs) proves it can achieve its expectations, that's a GPS system that doesn't need forward designation (~10m precision?),
but it's still not ready for primetime (could easily be another 5+ years for a mass-production-ready system capable of adapting across the board to either 105&155mm artillery, and 120mm mortars).
 
...not that we haven't talked this stuff to death already, like here, about this time last year,
or even all the way back here, a few years ago yet.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/15/2009 9:19:00 AM
Although it has the potential to make the system too complex, there is always the possibility that lightweight UAV's could be used for target illumination?
Eliminating the need for a Forward observer...
 
 
 
 
 
Nexter Munitions is also said to be developing a system (MPM)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/18/2009 3:46:07 AM

The pdf offered on the PGMM is an older one: the system depicted at the beginning is/was based on a German program called Bussard, same wingplan and everything, just needed the US gold-plating tacked on to justify a higher price.

In its current propsed form, the M395 PGMM looks nothing like the Bussard.

 

$15K for a 120mm PGMM will never happen, not as a complete from-the-ground-up, purpose built precision munition.

Some sort of PGK-equipped equivalent, certainly (course correction mechanism and actual "dumb" round's combined price).

 

Ask the Swedish where they went with the Strix, certainly wasn't coming in that cheap: mass production just might get that price down, but only after future blocks/iterations work out the technical kinks and find cheaper solutions to fabricating many of the components.

$15K is still asking for a lot of technological miracles in one package in post-year-2000 dollars.

 

As to the USMC's interesting little 120mm: the EFSS Expeditionary Fire Support System,

it consists of four units: two 'pullers", little trucks buggies even smaller than a WW2 Willys Jeep, with one towing an ammo limber and one towing the actual mortar.

Four pieces of equipment just to move one mortar.

What f...'s it up for the USMC is the fact they wanted something internally-portable in their V-22s, which will require two of them to move a complete fully-battle-ready EFSS system (gotta figure in crews and the crews' supllies).

 

If anyone here has ever seen the concepts for the EFSS, there's no room at all for any protectiuon on those little runabouts, other than minimal protection from the elements.

 

In short: a dismal failure.There's better systems out there for the same amount of money the USMC is throwing away into the EFSS.


What about Raytheon's DAGGER? I am not a mortar or artillery expert so I would appreciate the views of some professionals on this system.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       6/18/2009 10:10:33 AM



What about Raytheon's DAGGER? I am not a mortar or artillery expert so I would appreciate the views of some professionals on this system.

 

Herald


 
Could be the fact that it's so new, few of us have even heard of it.
This article from Raytheon is dated 01 June 2009, so it's not like it's gone mainstream press to the extent we've seen how Excalibur came on like hot cakes.

"

New Raytheon-IMI GPS-Guided Mortar Rounds Demonstrate Tactical Capability During Tests

System ready for rapid fielding

YUMA PROVING GROUNDS, Ariz., June 1, 2009 /PRNewswire/ -- A new type of 120 mm precision-guided mortar round hit eight out of nine target areas during a recent U.S. Army-Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) cooperative research and development agreement demonstration.

The rounds made by an Israel Military Industries-Raytheon team hit short- and long-range targets, demonstrating greater range than current unguided 120 mm high-explosive mortar rounds in the U.S. Army's inventory.

The new mortar round, called 120GM DAGGER?, is guided by a GPS and inertial navigation system and enables soldiers to place a mortar within 10 meters (approximately 11 yards) of a target. DAGGER is being designed to be compatible with the U.S. Army's 120 mm Battalion Mortar System.

"The warfighter needs a precision-guided mortar and DAGGER meets that requirement," said Bill Patterson, Raytheon's DAGGER program manager. "DAGGER has demonstrated a high level of maturity, and we are ready to put it in production and get it to the soldiers in the field immediately."

During the demonstration, the U.S. Army fired DAGGER rounds at a variety of target areas located in mountainous terrain. The rounds were fired under field conditions, including minimum and maximum range and hot and cold round temperatures. Seven of eight rounds reaching the target area landed within 10 meters of their target, a level of precision impossible with an unguided mortar munition.

-------------------
 
Fact is, if it's a joint program between both IMI and Raytheon, these folks are the ones to do it.
Hopefully sooner than later, we'll see more of this gem.
I'm curious of its range envelope myself, as well as costs per.
And comparing a 10m GPS accuracy to a 1m laser-designated accuracy: unless you're in a reinforced bunker or an MBT, will those 10m really make much difference if it still lands near enough, being a 120mm round?
Even with GPS, you could still be the unlucky git to have it bulls-eye right on top of you or arm's-length away.
Worth looking into.
 
Thanks, Herald.
 
 
...for what it's worth, I dug up this article on the PGMM, from the US Army's Project Manager Mortar Systems.
My bad for stringing you guys along: I was unaware it was cancelled completely...
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/19/2009 3:40:25 AM
I tend to agree with Dogtag 10m Vs 1m accuracy is no comparison really, When considering that Mortar is often used in close proximity to friendly troops and in urban areas.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I found company propaganda on DAGGER   6/22/2009 3:04:57 PM
 
First I hope the stupid video works.
 
Second from what I saw in the video, it is a charge-boosted snap-out fin-guided MISSILE launched from a smooth-bore mortar tube. It is not a mortar shell in the traditional sense. Those fins are there for LIFT as well as for steer control.
 
If it works as is represented then the MER is about that for the current US Army 120 mm mortar shell with the difference being a first round blindfire strike accuracy within the CEP of about 85%. Not bad, but not the 95% first round kill, I would want.
 
Miss is 4-6 meters claimed, not 10 meters as reported in the MSM.
 
I have no idea what each round costs. I'm assuming a lot of LAHAT type oleo lever fin steering technology went into it so I don't expect a very cheap round.
 
I allow the caveat that the round has been shown in some illistrations with puff jets; but I regard that as nonsense.since the fins I see, canard and tail control, would do the job just fine and are cheaper and more reliable. I wonder if you can put a laser sensor in the nose?
 
Herald
 
 
Herald
 
 

 
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Thanx, Herald   6/23/2009 8:14:18 AM
The video worked fine.
 
4-6m? (that's not even 20feet)
Damn, I am impressed!
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics