Jump to content


Photo

Not 8 Inch, But Marines Making Their Own Fire Support


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1042 AM

There is such a project, tho.

 

http://www.army-tech...ter-bomb-glsdb/

 

I was aware of that one and very clever it is too :) What I meant was literally a short ranged weapon like that Syrian (?) improvisation above, but with GPS/INS guidance and possibly SALH too, primarily for guidance via small UAV. Max range no more than 18km - even half that would be useful though.


  • 0

#22 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 11 November 2017 - 1117 AM

Looking for refs, I found this blog, which is somewhat entertaining on the subject. It is not very new.

 

http://navy-matters....ch/label/ATACMS

 

Then there is:

 

http://www.freerepub...s/3562881/posts

 

Aha, this one: From the USN 1997 Posture[ing] Statement:

 

Naval Fires: Fire support requirements for the future are being addressed by wedded Global Positioning Systems and gun technologies that will enable surface ships to engage targets ashore more than 60 miles distant. Especially promising are composite-material technology breakthroughs, which could enable gun systems to engage targets beyond 100 nautical miles. Research-and-development funding has been allocated to develop these capabilities for future deployment in the fleet.

 

The Army's Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, is a medium-range weapon that provides a quick-response strike capability to support our expeditionary forces within ten minutes of the call for fire. The Navy is evaluating a seagoing version of the Army missile for deployment on board surface ships and submarines. The quick-response strike capability of a Navy TACMS makes it ideally suited to engage mobile command-and-control, air-defense, and cruise-missile launch platforms. In the near future, the TACMS missile could provide an effective means to counter weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by providing the ability to destroy them without warning. A joint Army/Navy project currently under way will develop and test a warhead that will give TACMS the capability of destroying deeply buried or hardened targets, such as those used for WMD production and storage facilities.

 

The Navy is also investigating the concept of modifying the Standard missile for a surface-to-ground strike role. Studies are under way to determine which missile option is the most cost-effective way to provide a rapid response, all-weather strike capability in support of military power projection ashore.

 

Arsenal Ship: Arsenal Ship is a technology demonstration program exploring affordable and innovative enhancements to our force of carriers and strike capable combatants and submarines. Armed with missiles and with space for future extended range gun systems, Arsenal Ship has the potential to provide massive firepower in the early stages of a crisis, and to augment fire support to landing force or other ground commanders. These platforms could be continuously forward deployed, available for rapid movement upon receipt of warning or changes in the tactical situation. Much like our Maritime Prepositioning Force, Arsenal Ships could remain on station as required for indefinite periods without dependence on host nation support or permission. The program is designed to develop technologies for incorporation in the SC 21 and other future platform types.

 

 

http://www.navy.mil/...7/pos-pg08.html

 

 

In 1994, then-Vice CJCS Adm William Owens, a member of the Revn in Military Affairs cabal, called for testing the army's ATACMS at sea as a possible anwser to the USMC demand for longer range shore fire systems in support of the Over-the-Horizon doctrines for PhibOps. 

 

I can't find any reports but I recall a shipboard compatibility project held c.1995 in which the concept was considered unsupportable because of the on-deck and stowage spaces could not be accommodated, even on a 20,000 ton LPD.  The blogger on my first reference derides such things as mindless stunts. He may have a point.

 

From Warships1: A discussion thread

 

 

The US Navy also tested one such round at White Sands, followed by an at-sea launch from the amphibious assault ship USS Mount Vernon in February 1995. The vessel, steaming at 10kt, fired the missile from a standard M270 tracked launcher chained to its helicopter deck (emphasis added)... An operational variant of Navy TACMS could use either the Mk41 Vertical Launch System (for which United Defense has designed a suitable canister) or fixed deck launchers. The round's six-channel GPS receiver provided 13 position updates, using a total of eight Navstar satellites, during its 75nmi flight to the target area on San Clemente Island off the coast of California. The missile then dispensed some 800 inert grenades, achieving an accuracy of 71% of the weapon's nominal circular error probable (emphasis added).

 

https://www.tapatalk...8f89e58#p489655

 

 

So, it remain's anybody's guess at this point, but USN inertia likely will prevail.


  • 0

#23 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,871 posts

Posted 11 November 2017 - 2003 PM

Sounds like they need a modernized version of this:

 

https://en.wikipedia...rronade_(IFS-1)


  • 0

#24 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,566 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 11 November 2017 - 2018 PM

Might be possible in the Age of Trump.
  • 0

#25 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,009 posts

Posted 12 November 2017 - 0719 AM

Even a cheap wire guided large caliber ATGM for busting up bunkers and buildings would be good. 


  • 0

#26 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 November 2017 - 0736 AM

Interestingly, the Syrians devised a SACLOS jammer with all-round effect.

http://within-syria....ab-1-2-aps.html

It appears to be very affordable, and could very well be used to protect field fortifications against SACLOS missiles.

Laser beam riding is about as cheap and allows for higher velocities, so I suppose it should be preferred.


  • 0

#27 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 November 2017 - 0738 AM

http://spioenkop.blo...tino-shams.html

 

4390.png

 

3393.png

 

5579.png


  • 0

#28 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 November 2017 - 1005 AM

TOS-1A for beggars?


Funny how the wheel gets reinvented time and again with short range HE rockets on an armoured hull.

Edited by Panzermann, 12 November 2017 - 1011 AM.

  • 0

#29 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,009 posts

Posted 12 November 2017 - 1110 AM

TOS-1A for beggars?


Funny how the wheel gets reinvented time and again with short range HE rockets on an armoured hull.

I am surprised the Soviets in WW2 never thought to put their large caliber rockets on the T-60 chassis as per the BM-8-24, especially their copy of the 32 cm flame rocket.


Edited by KV7, 12 November 2017 - 1110 AM.

  • 0

#30 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 November 2017 - 1319 PM

images.jpg

 

RBT-5 on BT-5 base


  • 0

#31 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 13 November 2017 - 1424 PM

Regarding SDB, smaller and low frag is exactly the opposite of what is desired.  Like I said, boosted 1000-2000 JDAM, on a trailer like a MICLIC, maybe 15km range, tops.  One trailer 4k load, 2x2000 or 4x 1000.  S/F...Ken M


  • 0

#32 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 13 November 2017 - 1506 PM

The booster, launcher rails, T&E gear are going to push that weight per warhead up. 


  • 0

#33 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 13 November 2017 - 1717 PM

So what?  Ever seem a MICLIC trailer?  This isn't complicated, you can use a fixed angle launch, and just brute force the azimuth.  

 

They've made it kinda fancy now.  S/F....Ken M

$_1.JPG?set_id=880000500F


  • 0

#34 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,160 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 November 2017 - 1733 PM

Long ago for some wargames I was thinking of a way to make a relatively low risk development of an SRBM for a fictional major non-NATO ally in order to give them the ability to strike known Division / Corps level C4I targets in an environment where air superiority was not guaranteed.   It was basically what E5M described; a JDAM (with wing-glide kit) on a dumb rocket booster.  One of the supporting arms inside even had a "hardpoint" for it to connect to and release at apogee.


  • 0

#35 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 13 November 2017 - 1804 PM

So what?  Ever seem a MICLIC trailer?  This isn't complicated, you can use a fixed angle launch, and just brute force the azimuth.  

 

They've made it kinda fancy now.  S/F....Ken M

$_1.JPG?set_id=880000500F

I was just thinking of your original specification of towed by a HMMWV and a 4000k trailer load getting a bit beyond what HMMWVs are rated for. It looks like it's in LMTV towed load range....


Edited by rmgill, 13 November 2017 - 1804 PM.

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users