US Army has nasty new artillery toy in development

[John Kettler]

They think they can fire a short mission and clear out before any counterfire hits, but I have grave doubts on that score, considering that the Soviets, circa 1980, were already using 4 minutes as the time window before the MQ-4, a far cry from the Hughes Firefinder radars to come, could bring down counterbattery fire. This is especially true if MRLs, particularly with bomblets (a la US steel rain) are employed. 
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[LongLeftFlank]

Be interested to hear what the pros on the board think, but I'd bet money that this cheap and cheerful system is for export.

...I mean, since 1989 has the US Army ever faced robust radar-directed counterbattery fire from a near-peer army, where it needed to keep its tubes flitting around for survival? As opposed to digging in, calling for air and outshooting the enemy first, in the Uncle Sam way? Is there a serious expectation of that threat arising in the future?

Towed 105s, dug into a firebase well-stocked with shells, remain the best solution for breaking up enemy concentrations in a battalion or regiment AO. They put a boatload of low cost HE on target quickly, and way outrange guerrilla mortars and Katyusha/Grad type rockets. And on crap mountain roads, towed tubes can get more places than SP can. Plus the Hummer can be an ammo carrier.

So I'd guess the export markets for this system would be India and Vietnam? perhaps some of the Eastern Europeans? Taiwan can afford higher tech like MLRS, which makes more sense anyway for the short, intense 'all or nothing' war they'd fight.

Large medium tech armies with an unfriendly neighbour who aren't keen on Chinese or Russian kit (probably because they ARE the unfriendly neighbour) and will buy American kit in spite of the higher costs, especially if Uncle Sam subsidizes it. 

IIRC, back in the day when I still read Janes, it was the French-Italians and South Africans who dominated the tube artillery 'marketplace'. And then Chinese knockoffs drove them out, as with everything else. Until China became The Enemy again after 2016.

FWIW, I don't claim to be infallible on this stuff.

[MikeyD]

Sometime the Pentagon gets into ever-more complex, esoteric weapons systems that fail in testing more and more often, until they reach a point where they tear up their 'exotic' design  and instead go for the simplest thing they can think of the accomplish the task. It looks like the Humvee-mounted 105 is the answer to 25 years of trying to field a usable electromagnetic rail gun

[FlemFire]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Be interested to hear what the pros on the board think, but I'd bet money that this cheap and cheerful system is for export.

...I mean, since 1989 has the US Army ever faced robust radar-directed counterbattery fire from a near-peer army, where it needed to keep its tubes flitting around for survival? As opposed to digging in, calling for air and outshooting the enemy first, in the Uncle Sam way? Is there a serious expectation of that threat arising in the future?

Towed 105s, dug into a firebase well-stocked with shells, remain the best solution for breaking up enemy concentrations in a battalion or regiment AO. They put a boatload of low cost HE on target quickly, and way outrange guerrilla mortars and Katyusha/Grad type rockets. And on crap mountain roads, towed tubes can get more places than SP can. Plus the Hummer can be an ammo carrier.

So I'd guess the export markets for this system would be India and Vietnam? perhaps some of the Eastern Europeans? Taiwan can afford higher tech like MLRS, which makes more sense anyway for the short, intense 'all or nothing' war they'd fight.

Large medium tech armies with an unfriendly neighbour who aren't keen on Chinese or Russian kit (probably because they ARE the unfriendly neighbour) and will buy American kit in spite of the higher costs, especially if Uncle Sam subsidizes it. 

IIRC, back in the day when I still read Janes, it was the French-Italians and South Africans who dominated the tube artillery 'marketplace'. And then Chinese knockoffs drove them out, as with everything else. Until China became The Enemy again after 2016.

FWIW, I don't claim to be infallible on this stuff.

Likely, but the U.S. military does seem to have a growing import placed upon mobility, speed, flexibility, etc.

[Ultradave]

7 hours ago, John Kettler said:

They think they can fire a short mission and clear out before any counterfire hits, but I have grave doubts on that score, considering that the Soviets, circa 1980, were already using 4 minutes as the time window before the MQ-4, a far cry from the Hughes Firefinder radars to come, could bring down counterbattery fire. This is especially true if MRLs, particularly with bomblets (a la US steel rain) are employed. 
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Back in the late 70 s and 80s our rule of thumb was if we fired 6 volleys from a position it was time to leave before the couterbattery arrived (assuming against the Russians). Probably cliscc we go that 4 minutes (or even less). We counted it in rounds fired and tracked rather than time.  So we figured our mode would not be a set battery position but one hipshoot after another. 
 

I don’t know how that translates to today’s world but I’d assume counterbattery radar has only gotten better. How many countries have top line capability would be the question. 
 

Dave. 

[LongLeftFlank]

...Plus mounting a big whackin' cannon on top is about the only way to get foreign buyers to touch a GM product, lol.

"What's good for General Motors is a̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶l̶e̶f̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ good for America."

/politics

We are heroes of the homeland, American remains....

 

 

[Artkin]

Well, the Hilux is truly insane. I will import one when I have the cash... for now I love my GM GMT800 but it ain't no Hilux.