Mike Goldfarb over at the Worldwide Standard blog banged out an interesting piece today on the latest test in Iraq of an Excalibur 155mm artillery round.
Inside Defense reported the shot yesterday, though it occurred earlier in the month against an al Qaeda safe house.
The WWS quotes a few defense experts critiquing the operational test, some calling it a stunt and saying the precision-guided artillery round isnt much use when the U.S. has total air superiority.
This morning I spoke with Stuart Koehl, a military analyst at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, who called the strike “a stunt, because they didn’t have to use an artillery round, they could have used an airplane–it would have been a lot cheaper.
In counterinsurgency this kind of thing is mainly irrelevant. If I really need the long-range indirect fires, I’ve got total air supremacy, I’ve got all-weather capability, I really don’t need an artillery round when I could drop it from an airplane. It just makes a lot more sense to have something right there on the scene shooting from a much shorter range…a JDAM dropped from overhead is going to go right down the pipe, no matter what.“
Except thats not exactly true. Aircraft are not always on station and sometimes if there are planes aloft, there arent enough of them or theyre tasked out to do other things, like search for IEDs.
But every forward operating base has an artillery battery and that battery has guys ready to pull the firing cord at a moments notice. The artillery fires are much more responsive and a precision-guided 155 round packs just enough punch to knock out what you need, leaving the rest largely undamaged.
As John Pike at Globalsecurity.org points out correctly
“If all I want to do is blow up one building, JDAM’s just too much of a good thing.“
Critics say the Army should be spending more time looking into a precision-guided mortar. But, thing is, they already are.
Infantry mortars are good for suppression and fixing the enemy. The 120mm mortar fits the bill for an infantry vehicle-portable precision fire platform for medium distances. If a soldier or Marine needs to knock out a specific room in the short range, he can use an AT4 or LAW.
Programs like Excalibur, however, could suffer from the time worn Pentagon practice of adding capabilities that boost the cost and make the thing more complicated and expensive that it needs to be. Army, Marine and Navy, for that matter cannon cockers need precision rounds just as much as the jet jocks do. And in a counterinsurgency, precision is everything.
– Christian
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
How much do the arty rounds cost? I can’t imagine it would be cheaper to fly a jet and drop a bomb would be cheaper.
But if it’s air delivered, and not shot from a howitzer, then the Army has a harder time justifying new toys for the Artillery branch. It’s good old fashioned inter-service rivalry and budget shenanigans.
Like we should give a left ##$%^& about an opinion from a university ‘talking head.’ Their opinions are about as useful as a set of bar-bells in a fire fight.
An operational test is exactly what is needed. Especally, if there are air assets that can verify accuracy and effectiveness.
Additionally, it is unlikely that a single arty round is more expensive than several hours of JP10 AND a precision bomb.
It’s time to find a new “expert.”
Thank god the US Army continues to develop Artillery. It scares me as an Army soldier that we seem to be heading toward a point where Artillery is on the outs.. There are just times when you cannot count on Air Support (particularily since the AF doesn’t consider that one of their core missions…. Artillery is always there to support the man on the ground, be in fire support or counter-battery missions).
When you see one of these rounds in action it is so sweet. It can be guided straight down between buildings to it’s target. The Army doesn’t have to wait for the Air Force to decide to help them out. Inter-service rivalries are done away with. It will change the beginning of warfare. You don’t have to wait for air superiority (it may not ever happen against a Soviet supplied enemy). The artillery is already there. Just give them the coordinates and the hole you need to punch gets punched. Aarooogah!
@Christian; if someone refers to new accurate mrotar fires, he’s likely not speaking about such old systems as the one that you linked but about ‘new’ mortar technology that’s around since the 80′s but not introduced yet.
- TDA 2R2M 120mm rifled mortar with much improved accuray over the traditional smoothbore mortars (this is the basis for the USMC DragonFire II prototype)
- PGMM guided munition, a progam that runs since I guess around 20 years. If they could only decide on the guidance…the rest of the design is available since the 80′s from a German company. Some nations have guided mortar rounds in inventory or under development (Sweden, Ukraine … a list some years ago listed about a dozen different projects).
About the test; it’s always difficult to send a guided munition on a house in a city. The CEP might be satisfying, but CEP does usually not include guidance failures – guided munitions can easily be 500yds off. That’s not the least because many guided munitions are aimed ballistically on a spot behind the target to give the guidance enough kinetic energy for maneuvering.
I also fail to see how this test was much more ‘operational’ than a simple test on a simulated target. There’s nothing more to learn from it than from test on a range in Iraq.
The artilelry vs. bomber debate will go on, but I’m quite sure that it’s obvious enough that a mix is the best anyway and only dispersed combat concepts and airborne/amphibious forces might depend entirely on aerial support fires.
I shot a TON of counterfire as a Battle Captain in Ramadi -
Best time for a counterfire (request to impact) – 1:46 – Usual average was 2-3 min until boom from authorized request.
Quickest time I ever got the MAW or AF to drop a JDAM – 19 minutes.
Not to mention aircraft are only overhead sometimes and “on call”, taking 15 minutes or more to get to the AO before processing the bomb drop request.
The professor quoted doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. Someone should tell him.
What’s really difficult with guided howitzer rounds is that it’s so much harder to include a guidace (fins, shock-resistant electronics) than in a simple artillery rocket. As long as there’s GMLRS, it’ll be difficult to justify Excalibur without expectation of high quantity being fired. If lots of fire missions include guided munitions, the logistical advantage of the smaller and lighter shell will probably justify the parallel development.
I know there is a finite amount of cash in the Pentagon coffers and all the services are in a budgetary knife-fight, but I can’t see any real wisdom of bombs OR arty. There is absolutely something to be said for having diversity and backup should one system either fail or be tied up elsewhere. It’s nice to be able to get a real-world operational test for a new piece of hardware before a major theatre war develops.
I want to know how many gunshots the guy at Hopkins has heard fired in anger. Theory is one thing but for anyone who has ever relied entirely on one piece of equipment knows, the minute you rely entirely on it–it craps out.
Keep em’ both and fire for effect!
Im not really into it, but i reckon a single Exalibur round on target costs about 10 times less then a single JDAM on target. Looking at the amount of resources involved in a single sortie, the jet fuel, write-off on very expensive pilot and mega expensive plane.
If you were ever in Ramadi, Iraq, you would definitely appreciate arty precision! sometimes, response is needed in seconds, not minutes!
@Macaca:
A JDAM kit was once published to cost 30k USD. The dumb bomnbs that it can be strapped on were already in inventory.
50k USD for Excalibur is quite hefty. Maybe OK for precision strikes, but too expensive for many other artillery fire missions. There are some designs available that simply replace the fuze of a 155mm shell with a fuze+a brake mechanism that reduces range error. The impact footprint is much reduced by such a solution – most liekly better for suppressive and small area fire missions.
Sven, the GMLRS travels much higher than an artillery round, so there are frequent delays due to having to clear the airspace. Artillery rounds have a much lower maximum ordinate. The King is still the most responsive fire support available to us, and now that it comes with a precision fires capability, it will be just that much more useful. Not only that, but when the airfields are socked in by weather and the jets can’t fly, the King can still shoot. Precision 155 rounds are a great addition to the toolbox.
Aircraft delivered munitions will never match the timing & tempo required for immediate indirect or direct fire-support by any ground or even naval forces in direct contact with enemy forces. The Pentagon Pukes need to kick this Administration AND Congress and GET SERIOUS about not only upgrading; but rebuilding our military to Ronald Reagan Standards. That means “Defense-in-Depth” from Strategic-to-Tactical. We should field every weapon we can in support of our troops who actually FIGHT vice spending zillions on “Remote Control” from the basement of the Pentagon.
So, Do we need Arty shells that are precise? Yep! Mortor shells too? Yep! And lets remember that we could use those Ten Divisions Klinton & Gore eliminated while on the Chicom Payroll.
We are now, and will be for years to come, fighting for our National Survival. WAKE UP D.C.!
So the way to win a Counter Insurgency War is to stand off, bomb the hell out of them and hope that your overly technical means function perfectly all the time every time? That works, my PC does what I tell it to do every day of the week, until it decides otherwise.
Understand that precise artilley is good, the drop shorts scare the hell out of me, but this is not a war to be won by technology, it will be won by will, resolve, commitment and people on the ground.
Ask anyone who has called for and received assistance from the KING OF BATTLE. On time-on target. Adding more precision, hell I would not even break a sweat calling a danger close mission!! I was in Ramadi….GOD BLESS THE ARTY. He bringeth light when it is dark, smoke so one can move, destruction when it is needed. The WAL-MART of the ARMY. Destroying people and equipment in mass wholesale quantities!
Dont get me wrong though, owning the air is nice but I sure do hate waiting in excess of 10 minutes for a pretty plane to drop a “smart” bomb.
Any when its our boys out there, who gives a rats A$$ how much it cost.
i lived and worked during the reagen years, terrible president. bush 1 ran the whole show.
the divisions that were done away with was sought by GEORGE BUSH 1, he told us we didnt need to spend “that much” on troops anymore. so bush put the reduction in place. look it up.
the cuts were in the pipeline, they took place during the president Clinton years. why send troops in when you can bomb the enemy back to the 11th century? look at the airplanes and other equipment we have now. designed in the 70′s and 80′s. WHAT do we now have sitting at some forelorn base we know nothing about? who knows, i just hope gw bush dont know about them.
>Critics say the Army should be spending more time looking into a precision-guided mortar. But, thing is, they already are.
If precision-guided mortar rounds get into production in the US and elsewhere, I hope some really good inventory control is introduced. Al Q with such isn’t a happy prospect.
Surely our thinking is not comfined to the situation in the middle east. There are still a lot of potentially deadly enemies out there plotting our demise as we sit and blog. We not only need a large variety and mix of weapons bot ground and air based and whatever else we can develope. Today we can fly in and dump ordnance on any target in the middle east theatre. A few years from now we may be fighting against a new enemy in western europe and or the far east. When we lose our Aerospace advantage, ie,destroyed satellites, our C&C is trashed and we will have to fall back on HF/UHF comms and good ol fashioned windage and elevation and fire for effect. Our next enemy may match or exceed our capability. Good ol fashioned marksmanship and radio comms might be all we have left to work with. Air superiority may be a thing of the past.
HEY DALE MALONEY,GO BACK TO MOVEON.COM
Stuart Koehl, whoever he is, doesn’t sound like he ever smelled cordite. To make a statement like he did betrays a vast gulf of ignorance when it comes to the effectiveness of artillery on the battlefield. As a former eight-inch howitzer battery commander, I can assure you that this weapon is amazingly accurate. The 155 mm also is quite accurate. If memory serves me, more than 80% of enemy casualties in Korea were inflicted by artillery fire. By the way, U.S. forces had air superiority in spades in Korea! The battle of Chipyong-Ni was won, in great part, by artillery. The Eighth Army took out two Chinese field armies in that particular battle and most of the casualties were from indirect fire weapons.
Yack,yak yak…Your all sounding to self important or are just to dam’d narrow minded.
Do any of you remember having to pull the mike out of a dead butterbars hands to call off a FUBAR’d fire mission and then looking at the Grunts “God Bless them ALL” then Finding the Guts to key the mike and call the fire mission in on them because
your being over ran.Then clean up in the morning!!
This round with the ability of this cannon to put up rounds for the same impact time..Sweet.. a ring of rounds around my position intead all over
us. Screw everything up to the Air Force,They killed a lot of us to. We won’t always be fighting a House…This is a Life saver for the Grunts!!!! Quit pissing up the rope!!! If you can’t handle the Truth Then I’ll relive it and Take you along and you can help me bag and tag 18 year olds body parts. There I’am done now. Thanks
for your time. SGRoberts usmc I corp
“First of all, the smallest JDAMs being used primarily are 1,000-pounders and the vast majority overall are 2,000-pounders.”
Hahn, your information is incorrect. GBU-38s are frequently used over there, they have a 500lb yield. Also, laser guided bombs are employed just as frequently, if not more. There are also several air-delivered munitions available to reduce collateral damage well below that of a 500lb bomb. The need for precision guided artillery is not driven by concerns about collateral damage, but rather by a need for more responsive precision fire support.
BTW, Niel, we did plenty of counter-fire missions in Jazirah, too. I don’t think Excalibur will be of much use in that role, best to stick with the standard “dumb” HE rounds with a mix of PD and VT fuzing.
I don’t foresee too much danger from AQ getting their hands on precision guided mortar rounds. They don’t have the means to determine the target location with sufficient accuracy to make PGMs effective. In the end, target location error is the biggest limiting factor with GPS-guided munitions.
I don’t have all the info on this precision Guided Round for the Army and grunts.. But, as a Vet of the Submarine Service, it seems to me that having precision guided munitions in EVERYONE’S hands could be a good thing.. Remember, when the stuff hits the fan, there is T.O.G.A. to think about.. The Only Guy Available.. What happens if some Army, or Marine really needs to take out a target to save their butts.. Maybe the Cannon is the only thing available… Sounds like a good Idea to Me…
AND….ARTILLERY “KING OF BATTLE” L2/11 1stMAR DIV, 155mm (Towed)
In the long run artillary should prove to be cheaper. It always has in the past. Precicion guided ordinance was inevitable.
duck and cover.it might save us a few planes and pilots in the long run and keep some of the bad guys guessing what thay need to pack for the next fight.
Congrats to the EXCALIBUR team from a former member. Looks like it is working as was envisoned! You guys got this one right!
http://dating.dorkos.info/001.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/002.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/003.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/004.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/005.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/006.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/007.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/008.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/009.html dating
http://dating.dorkos.info/010.html dating
This discussion should be obvious:
World you rather have a rifle at 200m or a musket at 25m
Precision and stand-off always wins — unless you are a terrorist and all you want is immediate effect (e.g. explosive vest)
The other positive is that technology will drop the price of the “smart” artillery round while operational costs of aircraft will just increase
Of-course left out of this discussion is the “kamikaze” UAV carrying the artillery round’s warhead and loitering over the target area with sensors, gps and direct link to the forward observer
Westy