Comments on: You Run, You Die

By: zeno

zeno — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:37:38 +0000

about Vulcano subcalibre rounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckj3Cc1fACc

By: zeno

zeno — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:36:42 +0000

subcalibre guided Vulcano rounds for 155mm Pzh2000 can reach 120 km needing ground/air target laser illumination.
far less collateral damage risk than a 500lbs bomb, but keeping howitzers around is surely a big logistic mess if not in support of a FOB like dutch army succesfully does (w/o vulcano rounds)
the money tradeoff of keeping manned air assets ferrying smart bombs overshooting within range (or the time needed from call to reach range) versus the “immediate” firing of a gun which is useless if not already in range could help. I think there’s no jack of all trades.

By: NTV

NTV — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:28:55 +0000

> The requirement for the total number of fire
> points will fall as the range of GMLRS rises,
> or the Army makes 300km range unitary ATACMS
> available for the mission.
Yes, the range can be increased, but when will they be active? What will the unit cost be? And you still have logistical and security costs.
> How much interdiction and deep strike is (a)
> required and (b) possible in a low intensity
> combat situation like Afghanistan?
In the current Afghan situation, interdiction and deep strike missions are few. But there is more to fighting wars than the Afghanistan 2008. In other cases interdiction and deep stike missions will be necessary.
> Interdiction in such a situation often requires
> 1. Eyes on human surveillance by Special
> Forces/Long Range Recon patrols to confirm the
> target/avoid collateral damage and
> 2. Rapid response once the decision to engage
> is made.
The observation and laseing of targets can be accomplished by manned or unmanned aircraft.
> Increasingly, UAV’s are a 24/7 asset as well
> because they cost less than manned aircraft to
> buy or operate
Yep, they are, and they can drop bombs too.
> thanks to flight control software automation –
> trained pilots are not required to operate
> them. All you need for the newest UAV controls
> are kids who grew up with play station or WII
> to operate them.
Thats the popular conception, dont know if its realy true, but popular non the less. And BTW as the software gets more complicated, the UAVs get more expensive, and thus less numerous.
> What is happening is that the manned strike
> fighter close air support is being displaced by
> a cheaper UAV/Ballistic PGM/Artillery observer
> paradigm during a low intensity conflict
> situation.
AS I said, There is more than CAS in low intesity conflicts. What works in Afghanistan, might not work so well in other parts of the world.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:16:17 +0000

While the language quoted is a bit weasly, one assumes that the “combat first” is hitting a moving target in real combat with this weapon, and not simply hitting a moving target from the air in combat, something that happened many hundreds of times in the early Iraq War from fixed wing aircraft.
Presumably, the real significance of the LJDAM is that it allows a moving target to be hit from a greater range, hence reducing the historical importance of getting close to a target for close air support missions.
In other words, the LJDAM is the kind of weapon that makes it less important to have a specialized A-10 replacement, as opposed to a more typical F-35A, for this kind of mission, in future wars.

By: NTV

NTV — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:43:31 +0000

> They have produced more than 5,000 GLRS with
> 70km range and have just started production of
> a variant with a 85km range.
Okay, now you can cover the border with 60 fire bases. They still require defensive troops and tremendous logistical support.
But, there is more to the AF, not to mention Marines, and Naval aviation, than ground support. What about interdiction? and deep strike missions?
Again, both air launched and tube/rocket muntions are usefull. Both have their time and place.

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:34:20 +0000

>The Afghan Pakistan border itself is 2400 km long.
>With a range of 20 km and a need of mutual support
>the 155’s would need to be placed 10km apart. That
>means 240 155’s to protect the border alone. Those
>firebases will need to be defended by an additional
>50 — 150 soldiers. Thats a lot of troops and
>supplies. If you want to argue costs, the costs here
>appear to be high.
The 155mm gun plus Excalibur is not the only or even primary Army Ballistic PGM.
They have produced more than 5,000 GLRS with 70km range and have just started production of a variant with a 85km range.
GMLRS would be in the permanent fire bases on HIMARS or tracked MLRS launchers and the 155mm gun would be the air assault fire support component for patrols.

By: NTV

NTV — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:53:54 +0000

> A single CH-47 mission can carry a light
> weight 155mm gun and one ton of Excalibur
> rounds (about 20) to most mountain peaks in
> Afghanistan.
Sure, but that approach brings logistical and operational problems.
If you want to put a 155 on a mountain to cover a patrol that wouldnt be a problem, at first. After a while the the Taliban/AQ fighters would get wise to where the 155 was getting placed and any suprise would be lost. OTOH if you wanted to base the 155’s more perminately then you will need a lot of them cover the area that needs to be covered. The Afghan Pakistan border itself is 2400 km long. With a range of 20 km and a need of mutual support the 155’s would need to be placed 10km apart. That means 240 155’s to protect the border alone. Those firebases will need to be defended by an additional 50 — 150 soldiers. Thats a lot of troops and supplies. If you want to argue costs, the costs here appear to be high.

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:41:47 +0000

>Because there are times that the Excalibur cant be
>used, namely when the bad guys are outside of the
>range of the Excalibur. Thats when an air dropped
>weapon is useful
A single CH-47 mission can carry a light weight 155mm gun and one ton of Excalibur rounds (about 20) to most mountain peaks in Afghanistan.
That gun has a 20km range with Excalibur. It can cover multiple ground patrols in its weapons delivery fan with a reaction time only an aircraft orbiting over head of any single patrol with GBU-54’s can match.
The more issues of coordination and availability between the USAF and the ground services, the less they will rely on strike fighters for PGM fire support.

By: NTV

NTV — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:41:34 +0000

Discusing the cost tradeoffs of the GBU-54 vs. Excalibur etc misses the point. Because there are tims that the Excalibur cant be used, namely when the bad guys are outside of the range of the Excalibur. Thats when an air droped weapon is usefull.

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:55:51 +0000

Trent makes great points as usual.
Found this in an old RAND study:
Recurring Peacetime Costs for Selected Unit Types