Excalibur used in combat

[Capt. Toleran]

Used to take out a high-priority target recently:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003605.html

[John Kettler]

Capt. Toleran,

Veddy interestink--in a scary, deeply disturbing sort of way!

Regards,

John Kettler

[NoxSpartana]

...And there I was hoping for a second that some wandering English fisherman had come upon the sword and cleft some passing brigand with it...

[Holman]

So are these shells guided or what? Do they correct their course in flight? (And if so, why are they not called missiles?)

Or is it just that a GPS sat is used for spotting and correcting the fall of shot?

[dan/california]

GPS guidance in the shell, Kornet teams should pay a lot of attention to their camouflage. CEP is quoted as 10 meters, but the article if, I remember right, said both shells practically went through the same whole in the roof.

[flamingknives]

They are guided - fins at the back are there for stabilisation and it's steered with the canards at the front.

It also extends the range as the shell can be 'flown' to a certain extent rather than following a ballistic trajectory.

Missiles tend to refer to rocket-powered projectiles, while Excalibur is gun-launched.

[Pete Wenman]

I'm old enough to remember the Copperhead guided artillery round, which required a laser designator to paint the target. Seems this is the updated version.

Both systems share the same failing, which is the targets location needs to be known. I'd be interested to know how quickly a ground unit that detects a target can get a round on to it.

No point having pinpoint accuracy if the target has moved. For static targets this is not a problem but the US has enough systems that can take out a known target, although I guess this system must be at the cheaper end of the scale.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Pete Wenman:

Both systems share the same failing, which is the targets location needs to be known. I'd be interested to know how quickly a ground unit that detects a target can get a round on to it.

That would surely be a common failing with any weapons system, particularly artillery.

[JonS]

Not exactly. Artillery is - or was - by it's nature an area weapon, and that area-ness can be used to overcome uncertainty about exact location of the enemy. For example, a 105mm battery firing a circular distribution of 35m radius puts down a footprint about the same size as a platoon uses to dig in. So, when a FO identifies an enemy position, he can splat it with a circular-70 distribution in the comforting knowledge that he is likely to be affecting the greater portion of the enemy in that immediate area.

The extreme example is, of course, MLRS, with a full battery salvo taking out roughly a gridsquare. No real need for accurate target location there ...

However, with Excalibur you're going to get a whole bunch of shells falling in the same fighting pit, and bugger all effect anywhere else.

[John Kettler]

Martyr, flamingknives, Dan/California,

Per the "Future Weapons" episode I saw, Excalibur's trajectory to the GPS 3-D coordinate defined target can be shaped to such an extent, thanks to the fins and canards, that it can come down almost vertically onto the target, a capability once the exclusive province of mortars. This is why it's so significant in MOUT, for field artillery can now reach previously masked street level targets, rather than blowing up rooftops. Because of danger space issues, these often weren't even the right ones.

JonS,

While your statement about Excalibur is technically correct, I believe it reflects a completely inaccurate understanding of what Excalibur, GMLRS and such are all about--the precision neutralization of a specified target

via a single round. When you can take out a bunker with one well placed round, you don't need to fire a bunch of shots. Thus, the issue you posit is moot.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sergei]

Originally posted by JonS:

However, with Excalibur you're going to get a whole bunch of shells falling in the same fighting pit, and bugger all effect anywhere else.

Which is quite handy if collateral damage is any concern - as it is at present in Iraq. The US ROE dosn't allow to engage terrorists with MLRS in Baghdad downtown...

In a conventional war situation, I don't know if that is particularly useful. Just saturate the area with red hot TNT!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[SirReal]

From the article:

Clearly this is an exciting time for artillerymen who are growing tired of helping build and guard Iraqi institutions instead of blowing them up.

Yes, poor artillerymen. I sure they toss and turn every night they don't get to kill people. Moron reporters...

[tiny_tanker]

Originally posted by Pete Wenman:

I'm old enough to remember the Copperhead guided artillery round, which required a laser designator to paint the target. Seems this is the updated version.

Both systems share the same failing, which is the targets location needs to be known. I'd be interested to know how quickly a ground unit that detects a target can get a round on to it.

No point having pinpoint accuracy if the target has moved. For static targets this is not a problem but the US has enough systems that can take out a known target, although I guess this system must be at the cheaper end of the scale.

I would imagine that this can be done very quickly as its a much lower level asset then say close air support. I would say 10's of minutes instead of 30's or more. Trust me thats pretty darn fast.

[thewood]

Originally posted by SirReal:

From the article:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Clearly this is an exciting time for artillerymen who are growing tired of helping build and guard Iraqi institutions instead of blowing them up.

Yes, poor artillerymen. I sure they toss and turn every night they don't get to kill people. Moron reporters... </font>

[dan/california]

There are several real advantages to Excalibur.

1) No spotting rounds, the first salvo can be fire for effect, with as many tubes as needed. This may be the most significant one, there is NO warning before a salvo hits in the right place. No chance to duck at all.

2) 100% all weather capability. The artillery works in the rain.

3) Since it is GPS you don't have to maintain continuous lazing on the target to get a hit. Just a brief spotting zap to get the coordinates.

4) This was mentioned above but you can usually get Arty on the way much faster than air support.

5) also mentioned above the trajectory can be altered so buildings don't act as shields.

6) A comment above mentioned al the shells landing in the same place. They can but don't have to, every shell in a battery can be programmed for a different spot in the pattern. If you have developed the location of an enemy bunker system you could have eight rounds hit eight different bunkers in a single salvo.

7) It is designed for direct passthrough of coordinates from counter battery radars and computers. Extremely accurate counter battery fire can be on the way literally before the the other guys shells hit the ground.

8) I won't say the artillery is never out of gas but they run out a LOT less often than the airforce.

This has already been discussed in great detail by the way over at

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/4-1718.aspx

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by dan/california:

5) also mentioned above the trajectory can be altered so buildings don't act as shields.

That would be incredibly useful for enemy forces on a reverse slpe, as well.

[luderbamsen]

You really shouldn't think of Excalibur as a "guided artillery shell" but rather as a precision guided munition which happens to be fired from a land-based gun tube rather than an aircraft.

In some cases, it can replace an artillery barrage, notably against clearly defined targets with a well known position, such as bunkers.

In other cases, it can stand in for an air-delivered JDAM bomb, doing essentially exactly the same job.

Artillery is an area weapon yes, but nobody says it has to stay like that forever.

However, there are also things that Excalibur cannot do, such as continuous suppressive fire (unless you're unspeakably rich and can afford to sprinkle Excalibur rounds all over the place).

A key to Excalibur is accurate navigation and target location. This is where GPS and enhanced digital communications come into play. The two systems are very much complimentary, and without the ability to pinpoint targets, precision munitions are of little use.

[flamingknives]

An excellent point luderbamsen.

The Excalibur does fit right in with the American preference for destructive fires over suppressive fires.

That said, there is also the Course Correcting Fuse (CCF) that improves accuracy of otherwise unmodified artillery shells. If these could be made cheaply (as is the intention) then they would allow suppressive fires at longer range than is currently possible.

[dan/california]

The beauty of it is that the shells can be fired from a normal tube, You can have a 100 Excalibur shells in one stack and 2000 unguided shells in the other. A trained Forward observer should be perfectly capable of making a decision about which one to use. For instance you could have all but one tube in the battery firing normal shells to make movement unhealthy while Excalibur shells address one known fortified but pinned position after another.

The poor fool that confuses the stacks would have a pretty good chunk taken out of his pay though.

[John Kettler]

dan/california,

Not to mention that really modern artillery can fire a one gun or more TOT. It all depends on the targets and desired effects.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by luderbamsen:

A key to Excalibur is accurate navigation and target location. This is where GPS and enhanced digital communications come into play.

This raises a question i have for a long time:

a really strong oponent, like Russia or China, would first knock out the GPS satellites.

Why is so much (to my knowledge the whole precise target navigtion) built on the functionality of one system?

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by luderbamsen:

A key to Excalibur is accurate navigation and target location. This is where GPS and enhanced digital communications come into play.

This raises a question i have for a long time:

a really strong oponent, like Russia or China, would first knock out the GPS satellites.

Why is so much (to my knowledge the whole precise target navigtion) built on the functionality of one system? </font>A good question, but how else would you do it?

[JonS]

Originally posted by dan/california:

1) No spotting rounds, the first salvo can be fire for effect, with as many tubes as needed. This may be the most significant one, there is NO warning before a salvo hits in the right place. No chance to duck at all.

This has been available since 1917 (yes, nineteen-seventeen)

2) 100% all weather capability. The artillery works in the rain.

This has been a characteristic of artillery since St Barbara was knee-high to a grasshopper.

4) This was mentioned above but you can usually get Arty on the way much faster than air support.

Which has been a characteristic of artillery since St Barbara was knee-high to a grasshopper.

5) also mentioned above the trajectory can be altered so buildings don't act as shields.

Which has been a characteristic of artillery since St Barbara was knee-high to a grasshopper.

7) It is designed for direct passthrough of coordinates from counter battery radars and computers. Extremely accurate counter battery fire can be on the way literally before the the other guys shells hit the ground.

That capability was demonstrated at least as early as GW1 in 1991.

8) I won't say the artillery is never out of gas but they run out a LOT less often than the airforce.

Which has been a characteristic of artillery since St Barbara was knee-high to a grasshopper.

Incidentally, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I think PGMs are a terrific idea. This looks to be a further step down the destructiveness tree from the SDB, which is all to the good. The Big Dumb Bullets & Bombs are still available when needed, but Small Smart Bullets are a great club to have in the golf bag.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

A good question, but how else would you do it?

That's the point. From what i know, there exists no other possibility than with satellites, to create such an extremely accurate distributed clock signal. But if this is the case, and if you know, that potential enemys can switch it off, why is more and more built on it? The principle of diversity on battlefield is ignored if everything depends on one single service. Turn off the light and the whole army stands still.

Are there no voices in the US-army, that are warning, to make everything, down to the single platoon and arty-forward-observer, dependable on one single core-service?

I mean every $ can only be spent once. And if you already know, the evil neigbour can switch the light off in your house, would you continue to build security system after security system, or would you first make sure, he can't switch it off and if you can't deny that, wouldn't you invest more in tools you can use when the light is off, instead to invest more and more into electronics?

The soldiers in the field rely on it. And the damage occurs not only, due to the missing service, but there follows a huge negative impact on the morale, too, if the most powerful systems suddenly don't hit anymore or are even not available.

I don't understand this development. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

[flamingknives]

Most GPS-guided weapons have inertial back-up, so lack of GPS doesn't render them useless.