Odd Mortar Question.

[Peter Cairns]

Given that we are seeing termanally guided "smart" mortar rounds and the effectiveness of "Top attack" ATGMs, like Javelin, has anyone suggested developing a disposable one shot mortar along the lines of a LAW.

Range about 3,000 mtrs "Fire and Forget" , you just line it up angle it for approximately the right range, fire and abandon the plastic tube, and the "Seeker" does the rest. Issue them one per man to infantry squads.

Just an idea what do people think.

Peter.

[Nidan1]

A mortar and an ATGM have two distinct and separate functions.

I don't think I'm seeing any advantage to developing a one shot "fire and forget" mortar apparatus.

[Colin]

Mortars are meant to pin and supress the troops rather then kill them. One round doesn't do that extremely well.

Now some sort of single use CBU mortar could be interesting but I really don't see too much advantage to doing that.

[Drusus]

Are you looking for something like this?

defense-update .com: Advanced Mortar Munitions

[Drusus]

Ok, didn't get the question, forget about what I said in that earlier post...

Disposable mortar? So, you would like to have a system that is able to launch a projectile with over 45 degree angle to 3000m? Well, I think the system is going to be a bit heavy. The ATGM systems use flying (sorry, bad english) to get to the target. Modern finnish 81mm mortar round weighs about 5kg. If you use the old and tried powder system to fire it, you need a tube made of steel. If you are going to use a rocket system, well, I don't know if it is possible to do. But I think it would be better to give every man a radio, and let them tell the mortar team there is a tank around. Or I don't know if it would be possible to have a gps + laser pointer system so that you could just point at the target and the mortar team would automatically get the coordinates. The point is, I think it will be better left to the mortar team to fire the projectile.

[Peter Cairns]

But one of the reasons mortars are so heavy is that they have to withstand multiple launches, in the same way that an RPG-7 is far more robust than a LAW.

Anyway an 81mm mortar can fire far further than 3km, so your 5kg round is also probably a bit on the heavy side.

The purpose of the weapomn isn't to blanket cover an area but as a PGNm to take out individual vehicles etc. An EO sensor that can identify targets, could also engage armour on the other side of a hill.

Peter.

[RMC]

There is something in the works for the Future Combat System. They were developing two similar systems. One was Loiter Attack Munition and the other was Precision Attack Munition. Both have been described at "Artillery in a box."

The idea is that these missiles are deployed in networked boxes. The PAM can be called in (over the network) on a specific target. The LAM is launched from the same kind of boxed system, but it loiters over an area and selects a target on its own.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/netfires.html

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/firesupport/NETFIRES/product-NETFIRES.html

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

But one of the reasons mortars are so heavy is that they have to withstand multiple launches...

But a mortar tube needs to be strong enough to withstand even a single shot. The internal pressures within the tube amount to many atmospheres. I'm not sure there is any material available that would still be light enough to offer a significant advantage over a regular mortar. In other words, if you make it strong enough to withstand one shot, it's probably going to be strong enough to fire several, or even many.

The advantage of using a rocket-propelled projectile is that it doesn't involve huge tube pressures, therefore the tube can be much more lightly constructed. If, instead of a mortar, you want to design a high angle rocket bomb, you might have something. Of course, there are problems with that as well, such as how do you direct the backblast so that it is harmless and doesn't throw up a dust cloud the size of Connecticut?

Michael

[Drusus]

Actually, the heavier the shell the shorter the range. I don't know how heavy should a top attacking mortar grenade with sophisticated sensors be to be useful against modern MBTs.

One more thing about mortars is that you need a plate from which to fire from. If you have ever tried to fire from swamp you know what happens. The plate of 81mm mortar will go about 10cm to the ground. And this is firing from solid terrain but there is swamp nearby. The terrain is like jelly or something like that. Common in finland anyways. I can't imagine what will happen if you fire from watery swamp. Propably a disposed mortar . When you fire from rocky terrain with anything more than the base amount of powder you risk destroying the plate. Well, if the mortar is disposable, so what? The shot can go badly off. The problem is that the weapon should be attacking only a small area to be useful. And if the mortar will attack only a small area then it has to be quite accurate. I might be wrong about small area but I think that the larger the area, the heavier the shell has to be. And the larger the area the higher the risk of hitting your own troops.

BTW will CMSF model the problems mortar teams have firing from rocky terrain or from woods. Firing from woods can be quite deadly... It can take one CM game to prepare firing position in forest. On the other hand the best place to put your mortar is cut down forets, where there are young and scattered trees. Ofcourse finding the mortar is easy with modern equipment (radar) no matter how well you have your mortar positioned. Winter is still a different problem, but I think we can go without modeling this in CMSF... Desert is propably the easiest place to use a mortar. You just plant it somewhere and it is ready to fire. Shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to prepare for "direct" fire. Maybe 20 seconds to fire with the way of firing where the FO is close to the mortar team. (If I remember correctly in Finland the FO can be no more than 200m from the line from the mortar to the target). I think CMx1 simulated this quite well with the platoon leader as FO way.

[SgtMuhammed]

Actually Peter may not be too far off. One of the attack modes that Apaches use is to have a Kiowa paint several targets with its laser and then lob a volley of Hellfires at them. The Hellfires lock onto different lasers and head for the targets.

I could see something along the lines of a beefed up AT4 that could be fired in a high arc in the general direction of a target being lased by someone else.

[Drusus]

It really doesn't matter if the system is disposable or not if it is being lased from another position. It is enough that you have one per platoon or maybe one per company. It would propably be non-disposable and could well be 120mm mortar based. You can get a grenade with a weight of 10 kg to 10km with 120mm mortar. That is propably enough to make a top attacking missile. Ofcourse one could make a ATGM style weapon with the missile flying high. I believe these are developed actively. One big advantage of the mortar system is that if you do not use laser to point the target, but just fire a regular strike with not so regular ammunition, the MBT crews first warning is the tank blowing up. I believe the seeker can be completely passive. Propably heat seeking. Don't know what they have in store to counter these but they are going to have something for sure.

There is propably one more reason why not to make disposable high arc weapon. If you can see the target then Javelin is enough.

[Peter Cairns]

sgtgoody,

The longbow apache does better. A single radar equipped Longbow can in a single sweep of under 30secs detect up to I think it is 32 seperate targets.

It the relays them to the rest of the flight, say three others. Each apache then analyses the target data by position and threat and can then fire from behind cover. never having even poped up.

Of course if you don't use an Apache or kiowa, you could use a contra rotor UAV with a millimetre radar. (it would rotate on the stop rather than have a rotating radar, disorientating for a manned helo but nothing for a UAV).

It then sends that data to everyone in the network at the targets get hit from all angles and weapons types.

Michael,

Well as to materials theres Titanium ( expensive but not compared to the $4m M1A2 your trying to take out), or a ceramic, even Kevlar.

Next option might be to allow for a delay on firing and a combustable or desintegrating tube, or even a double skin that allowed gas to dissapate.

I don't think the base plate issue would be in surmountable either as it's a one shot weapon. If you added target GPS data it could correct it's own flight if it goes off track on the assent, though that might limit range.

Maybe this is something best left for the CM:SLoD, near future starship troopers style game, but I like the idea.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Kevlar wound tubes would probably do it for a one-shot weapon.

Ceramic almost certainly wouldn't - it's good in compression but hopeless in tension.

[Drusus]

Really, if it is going to have all those things, what is exactly the point why it should be entirely disposable? If you have target GPS then why not use that 120mm mortar or a dedicated system to fire a high flying ATGM. If it is not going to have it then the firer must still know quite well where the target is. If he sees it, why not use Javelin. If he doesn't see the target then somebody else must tell him where it is. Again you could use mortar.

Ofcourse if it really would be possible to make a system you could fire to the direction of the enemy and it would destroy the enemy tank it would be nice. And it would be light enough to be issued one per man. And the range is 3000 meters. Then yes, I would like to have one. Also, it would be useful to have a rifle which you just point to the general direction of the enemy and it does the rest. Would be totally cool.

[cassh]

Quite often organic weapon systems are more desirable to infantrymen - it means you do not have to rely on someone else when in a pickle. Availability and utility are the key factors.

Why would an infantry platoon need a smart top-attack disposable weapon? You could ask the same question of a number of other weapon systems:

1. Why do they want an m240/gimpy when the company/battalion weapons platoon/company can provide additional sustained fire?

2. Why do they want a Javelin ATGM/AT4 Law when company/battalion anti-armour assets can deal with armoured threats?

3. Why do they want sniper rifles when the company/battalion can provide sniper assets?

In all these cases, the answer is that it helps the platoon carry out their mission successfully with less chance of things going pear-shaped.

Quick scenario.

A forward OP calls in saying four enemy armoured recce vehicles are coming up the other side of the hill toward the platoon's reverse slope defensive position.

Is it quicker and easier to order a quick salvo of "WHAMMO" top-attack disposable smart rounds from the platoon's own arsenal?

Or do they get on the blower and try and whistle up some anti-armour asset in a higher echelon, knowing any delay could cause the enemy to compromise their position and relay the location back to the enemy's artillery batteries?

Having the imaginary "WHAMMO" smart round would allow the platoon to partially win the recce battle and deny the enemy knowledge of their defences.

The power of enabling/empowering lower elements to fight the battle as they see fit - to delegate and rely on the judgement of your subordinates is what makes some armies succeed where other fail. In combat, second means dead.

This type of weapon system is not significant for its hi-tech or state-of-the-art development; it is significant because it allows the guy on the spot more readily and easily to decide the outcome of combat.

Armies by their nature tend to be conservative and somewhat reactionary to innovation and change. This is generally a sound instinct - the desire being not to go off on hair-brained tangents that could get some poor generation of guinea pigs killed when combat comes around for real in the next war.

Nevertheless, it is innovators and trainers who make the difference when fighting "the next war". Initiative and tempo determine who wins. It is the guy doing something different - the trick no one has seen before that often holds both.

History is replete with examples of innovative armies kicking seven-shades-of-****e out of mental dullards who trained for "the last war".

Peter has identified a very useful type of weapon with ample reason for its application in combat. I see no reason here to question its plausibility more than I would a breach loaded rifle being developed in the Victorian period. Some weapons clearly have their time; and the inevitability of some type of fire-and-forget man-portable artillery/indirect fire system seems all too apparent. If America does not develop it, someone else will.

[Peter Cairns]

cassh,

Thanks mate that's the most positive response I've ever had to a post.

As most of you know I've had some stinkers.

Peter.

[SgtMuhammed]

I don't know Peter, you haven't been that bad.

[Drusus]

I think the consept of man-portable (maybe not one-man-portable...) fire-and-forget indirect fire system is going to happen. But I don't think it is going to be a one-shot-only mortar. If you want to have a system of this kind you want to get more than one shot out per platoon / squad. It just makes more sense to have a launcher and five grenades than five combined launcer/grenades. No matter how light the kevlar tube (if it is possible) plus some kind of base plate (I really think you need at least some kind of a plate), it is going to be quite heavy anyways. If I have understood correctly all the modern ATGMs have separated launchers and missiles.

I think that if you are going to have a mortar capable of firing five grenades to 3000m then it makes sense to have a real mortar with a range of 6000+ meters and ability to fire a couple hundred rounds per day. And yes, the concept of disposable one shot mortar is neat. But I think it is impossible to make it light enough to be more effective than something like regular mortar. If you are going to have five 20kg one-shot-mortars, then it is easier to have one mortar of 60kg and 8 grenades of 5kg each. Ofcourse I don't really know what modern technology can do. If you could make that disposable mortar only 10kg, then it might be worth it. But I think you can't. This is just my opinion.

If the disposable mortar is going to work in a way you fire it just to the direction of the enemy, then it is going to be really, really complicated system. If it only uses some sort of heat / magnet seeking to find a target in, say 100mx100m area, then it is only going to be complicated. Making it more complicated makes it more expensive and heavier. I think there is no 81mm smart AT rounds developed jet. And a smart AT round is a lot less complicated than the "to the direction" system.

[SgtMuhammed]

That's why I believe it will be more of a beam rider. Either finding a laser designator or radar or some other. A passive sensor with a simple guidance package. Leave the thinking up to the man picking the target.

[Peter Cairns]

Drusus, sgtgoody,

A couple of issues,

On the base plate, what about a two tube system , one shorter than the other, with a spring?piston at the bottom. When the round is launched some of the force is absorbed by that before it reaches the base plate, which is made up of a hex of fold out legs from the side of the tube.

Another ( might be daft) idea would be to have water instead of a spring, the falling main tude would force it out of the top as a spray on firing, this would dampen two things, the force hitting the ground, and the IR signature of the launching round.

The whole point of "Fire and Forget" is that the firer doesn't have to sight or track the target, If the target or it's support have laser detectors and or jammers you rik being exposed detected and engaged.

Sure you might get on target lased for a five shot weapon but five without getting pasted, I doubt it.

Then there is counter battery fire, the track to locate to response time is already under 60secs, how quickly will you get these things off.

Even if you've moved what then. At the moment the millimetre seeker on a hellfire can identify different tank types from their radar signiture. How long till an optical tracker can do the same.

I've no doubt that a Tv seeker that can be fired blind over a hill and which can "recognise" a T-72 and tell it from a tractor is pretty close. So why risk dspmeone in direct LOS of the target.

Better that the targeter if their is one uses a stereoscopic rangefinder with a compass and GPS, that way he gives an accurate postition passively without designating (though he still needs to send a burst signal).

Partly because we are on the CM:SF site people tend to assume that the next war will be against another technically inferior opponent, but that might not be the case, and besides there's "high Street" technology.

Lets say a Syrian type force has access to some form of GPS or pre surveyed network, with good communications ( possibly fibre optics). Now add to that digital microphones and laptops and you have 21st century sound ranging.

Traditionally sound ranging to locate artillery was a slow complicate and imprecise art ( which is why it has all but given way to radar for artillery location). But if GPS and digital audio (this is probably Madmat'S field), networked let you do it quickly and passively then sound ranging becomes an effective and cheap option for relatively low tech armies.

We tend to assume that we will detect detect their artillery and paste it while they won't detect ours because we'll have blitzed or jammed their radars.

For me the days of manned conventional towed artillery are all but over, as they take to many crew and are just to slow and vulnerable with modern response times. A 120mm in a Stryker can shoot and scoot, and when networked they can consentrate fire on a target while being spread over a large area.

However evne they will start to become vulnerable soon if the sit for more than a couple of minutes firing from the same spot, so a couple of rounds and move will become more common.

In this context the idea of a squad firing six rounds from six different positions and then getting the hell out before splattered by incomming is for me a good option.

Peter.

[Drusus]

Well, as said before a system that you can just fire to the direction of the enemy and then the enemy dies without you ever seeing the enemy would be nice. But, please, I think at this point you should point to some projects or some research so that the concept is based on something else than your imagination. I really want a rifle that you can just point to the dircetion of enemy and press trigger and you have a dead enemy. Actually I think we have that already... I should say point to the general direction.

[Peter Cairns]

Drusus,

It depends what you mean by imagination, I'd call it extrapolation. I am not suggesting a form of portable "Black hole" generator that lets a soldier swallow a village.

We have light mortars, we now have termanally guide mortar rounds, we have light disposable anti tank weapons, we now have man portable ATGM's like javelin that used to need three men and a tripod.

So almost all of the components for a fire and forget disposable mortar are there.

As John Cleese said about Shakespear, " It's all in their all you need to do is get it in the right order".

Anyway, how do you think new weapons come about, accidents in munition factories where random components fall in to a vat and new weapons just emerge.

Peter

[Nerd King]

I was in the US infantry, and I specialized in mortars. I would never, ever want to have to lug around a one-shot mortar system. Regardless of how light it is, weight is a precious commodity in that job that should carefully allocated. Waste of weight, which I can use to carry something more useful.

Indirect fire simply requires more than one round. Nuff said.

For direct fire, there are already plenty of lighter more accurate and more powerful weapons systems.

[Nerd King]

"I've no doubt that a Tv seeker that can be fired blind over a hill and which can "recognise" a T-72 and tell it from a tractor is pretty close. So why risk dspmeone in direct LOS of the target."

Sounds great on paper, works differently on the battlefield.

[Drusus]

Ok, lets go through this. A disposable mortar which you can issue to every squad member. How much that could weigh. 10kg is propably maximum.

Now, lets inspect the availabe weapons systems today. Light mortar. 60mm mortars weigh 20 kg and I think making a 60 mm smart round capable of knocking out tanks could be hard. 81mm mortars are about 50 kg. Guided mortar rounds. I don't know of any guided rounds for 81mm mortar, they are all for 120mm mortar and the round weighs about 10 kg itself. There might be smart rounds for 81mm mortar that I don't know of, but if there are any they are propably about 5 kg. Light disposable anti tank weapons. The AT4 weighs about 7kg. And it 1) does not fire at angles more than 45. 2) does not have a range of 3000 meters and 3) is not "smart" in any way. Javelin. Well, it is not sigle use only and:

Weight: 28 kg

Length: 1.76 meters

Range: 2000 m (max)

75 m (min)

Warhead Type: Heat

Warhead Weight: 8.4 kg

Armor Penetration: 600+ mm

Launching Platforms: man portable

crew of 2

This information is from globalsecurity.org and it is propably a bit off. But still it is safe to say that this weapon doesn't fire at high angles. It doesn't have a firing range of 3000m. As far as I know it isn't so smart that you can just fire to the general direction of unseen enemy.

So, where are the components for 10kg fire and forget disposable mortar with a firing range of 3000m and that it is smart enough so that you can just fire to the general direction? As said before the consept is ofcourse neat. But if you can't give me something concrete to show that this is actually possible to do in the foreseeable future then I have to say that this thing is just imagination. It is well possible that this kind of a weapon is going to be real in 50 years. Or that wars are fought entirely by robots. For now it is easier to give laser pointers to the soldiers and use that 120mm mortar with smart rounds. Or just call in a strike with special ammunition over enemy vehicles and thats it.