Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Land 17 SPG could also provide CRAM solution.
Volkodav    9/21/2008 1:49:35 AM
According to Janes IDR, KMV have successfully tested the 155mm AGM in the CRAM role against 60mm mortar rounds using Naval proximaty fuses on standard 155mm shells. It was suggested that both the Donar and PzH 2000 could achive similar results. The advantage of using 155mm would be to simplify logistics and combine CRAM with counter battery fire as well. I don't know if the K-9 could demonstrate a similar capability but the potential is if we are smart we could expand LAND 17 to fill our base CRAM needs as well.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
VGNTMH       9/21/2008 1:10:36 PM

Sounds interesting ?
Sorry for the source ?
Would a SPG ?turret? be able to slew / traverse quickly enough for C-RAM against mortars? Especially C-RAM against mortars fired from close by?
I gather these 155mm shells are ?steerable? rounds such as Excalibur. Not merely proximity fuzed normal shells?
I guess similar in concept to one of those Naval 76mm Oto Meralas with steerable ammunition but fully automatic fire and a much smaller turret.
Imagine the economies of scale and scope of a combined SPG, C-RAM solution, Naval gun, and Naval CIWS!
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Ummm...WTF?   9/21/2008 2:49:56 PM
Using an airbursting 155mm round to stop 60mm mortar shells?
Isn't that considerable overkill?
Wouldn't the 155mm have a far larger and lethal bursting radius, and risk of collateral damage, that the actual mortar shell it was trying to defeat?
This seems like it would compare to using a Nike Hercules SAM to bring down a Reaper-sized UAV.
I could understand the sense of using the 155 as a counter battery system against the mortar position, once a Firefinder-sort of  radar located its vicinity.
But to actually use the 155 as a CRAM system, and against such small mortar rounds, no less?
Anyone have a good cost analysis of using a 155mm system, as opposed to, say, the 35mm Millennium Gun, or that developmental EAPS 50mm Bushmaster Gun?
Hell, I'd even go so far as suggesting a Bofors 57mm gun and 3P fuzes, or even the 76mm and Davide/DART guided rounds...but 155mm, seriously?
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    This is very doable.   9/24/2008 10:22:48 AM
I acrually proposed this idea at a brainstroming meeting about 18 months ago!!!!  However I was actually thinking more along the lines of an Anti Air capability.  All you have do do is compute a Time on Target solution to a point in space as opposed to on the deck.  I would use a VT fuze as opposed to Proximity.  It is the size of the effect zone from the 155 shells that actualy make this possible.  You are not looking for a kinetic kill.  Simply detonate within a certain range and you will knock anything out of the sky!!!
However as doggtag points out the risk when engaging smaller mortars of collateral damage on teh ground would mean thare would be a very narrow engagement window.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    155mm AA/CRAM   9/24/2008 12:49:05 PM
I'll agree that,
if we could, ideally,
set up our intercept to be at the apex of the mortar's trajectory (the highest point in its flight)
so that the explosive blast is furthest away from doing any collateral damage to surface objects,
and the only hazards would be the fragments raining down all over,
then it's a doable case.
But catching the mortar round that soon after launch,
and getting fire direction control to get the gun on target fast enough, 
could prove quite tricky as far as small mortars are concerned...
120mm tubes have a higher arc, so easier to detect, but 60's will still prove troublesome
(very short ranged and minimal flight time, minimal trajectory height compared to 81mm & larger).
Germany had plans for a very impressive 15cm AA gun in late WW2, I have it in a book somewhere at homew,
I'll see if I can find it this weekend....
Against unmanned, minimally-evasive UAVs,
the big shell would work wonders against those small airframes (I can see the Jane's caption now: "Flak is back!" ).
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       9/24/2008 2:54:12 PM
"Flak is Back" - DT.   I love it, great headline!!!!!!
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/25/2008 6:42:17 AM
Wouldn't the 155mm have a far larger and lethal bursting radius, and risk of collateral damage, that the actual mortar shell it was trying to defeat?
What would generate more fragments, a single 155mm or a burst of pre fragmented light / medium calibre rounds?  What would be the greater risk in terms or collateral damage on the ground, fragments from air burst rounds, or small calibre solid projectiles / flechettes (as fired by Phalanx / Centurion)?
As for the greater lethal burst radius of 155mm, in rapid reaction, defensive applications that would have to be an advantage in that it would increase the chance that the first engagement would destroy the threat at the greatest possible distance.
I am no expert but wouldn't the majority of fragments continue forward along a ballistic path away from the firing point losing much of their initial velocity and hence there momentum / kinetic energy by the time they fell to ground?
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Volkodav   9/25/2008 8:01:59 AM
As per your side of the argument,
I'm pretty much asking the same things:
-is it more cost effective, and tactically effective, to use one or two 155mm rounds,
or several smaller caliber rounds?
-what are the downrange danger areas for various shells and their leftover fragments?
-are these fragments going to be small enough to risk minimal collateral damage?
-will these fragments still be danger hot (risk of starting fires) when they reach the ground environment?
-can a turret with the big gun and all its heavy ammo magazine and feed mechanisms be brought to bear, load a round, and fire fast enough to react to inbound mortar shells, yet keep its intended detonation point well enough away from both friendlies and non-combatants?
-if it can be used against mortar rounds, what about against plunging artillery fire from actual howitzers, or even various small rockets?
Those of us who've been to countless fireworks displays thru-out our lifetimes have all seen those pyro charges that seem like little more than a gunpowder detonation: a smallish white flash, but followed by a deafening boom that rattles windows for several square km and echos up the nearby valleys for quite a ways...
Point I'm getting at is, a while back there was talk of a composite-shelled artillery projectile,
designed around the intent that the composite shell wouldn't generate as much lethal fragments as typical steel-encased shells,
and it benefitted from being able to carry more actual explosive by weight than typical metal-case shells.
So could we then follow suit with this theoretical 155, or even 127mm (naval types) or 105mm (Denel LEO) and use just such a shell, on the grounds of using pure concussive force (and maybe blast heat) from the detonation to do the damage instead of a fragment cloud?
Certainly the local populace won't think too kindly of you, but if you're in that kind of environment that you even need such a system, they're probably used to such blast noise anyway (but the concussive effects on the human auditory system in close proximity to such activity is still cause for concern).
Then there's also the concerns of such a large muzzle blast on your own troops nearby, as opposed to the lesser caliber systems...
The other option is, if we're not concerned with the fragments downrange,
is a "forward-lethality" round,
akin to some of the USN's past develoments in created smarter munitions that have an adaptive fuze mechanism that can be programmed to initiate the shell's explosives in differing patterns:
setting off the explosive payload from the rear of the explosive mass could cause a cloud of fragments to be directed forward in a large cone, rather than an all-around burst like most fragmenting shells offer (some shells use a fuze in this manner that initiates from the center or core of the explosive mass, rather than from one end).
This forward cone would have the advantage then that all its highest-energy fragments would be thrust forward, up and away from the ground, and ideally into the path of the oncoming round: the trick here is to get the intercepting shell to detonate early enough in its flight to engulf the inbound projectile in a lethal cloud, rather than detonating too near the target so the spray of fragments is minimally effective because it couldn't fan out fast enough.
As to the issue of will several smaller rounds generate just as much fragments as a single larger round,
IIRC, the Bofors 57mm Pre-Fragmented shell has close to twice as many pellets as the similar-designed 40mm round.
How many similar (tungsten?) fragments could be packed into this conceptual 155mm shell,
and having much more explosive filler,
how much faster and how much farther will those fragments fly until they lose sufficient lethality to not cause risks to personnel and property on the ground?
I'm not saying it won't work,
but just the notion of using a single, or two, roughly 100 pound shells to do the work
that half a dozen 6 pound shells (57mm) can do seems rather wasteful, if not expensive.
Seeing as costs of munitions can fluctuate wildly depending on the overall arms deal package, I imagine it will be quite difficult to prove just which method is the most cost effective.
What about some of these recent developments in active protection systems for AFVs?
Could we just develop longer-ranged versions that are good at covering
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       10/3/2008 3:39:11 AM

  I would use a VT fuze as opposed to Proximity. 
Actually Proximity is the correct name for VT.  Being pedantic VT ceased to exist soon after WW2 when 'controlled variable time' (CVT) was introduced. The term proximity has been official for decades.
I guess the reason for a naval fuze is that it can be armed almost as soon as it leaves the barrel whereas land prox fzes have somewhat longer safe time.
Not sure firing 155 at 60 mm would be a way to win friends, 60 mm trajectory is fairly low and while a proportion of the shell fragments go forwards lots go sideways and this means downwards as well. 155mm frags can be lethal up to 2 or 300 m (ignoring the sodding great chunk of baseplate that some throw backwards) it could get nasty on the ground unless intercept was well out, preferably close to vertex or on the ascending part, which doesn't leave a lot of time.

Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/3/2008 7:46:45 AM
I like the concept of adding roles and capability to existing systems. 
A Section or Battery of 155mm SPG's serving in traditional roles could also provide precision strike against targets of opportunity and then, with the high rate of fire of modern systems,  switch seamlessly to CRAM then counter battery to take out who ever was just firing at them.
At the same time we should be looking at options at the lower end of the scale say 25 to 57mm or maybe even 75mm cued by networked sensors to serve as a last ditch CRAM back up as well providing a very respectable direct fire capability in the ground defence role.  It could even be a feature of what ever we select to replace the ASLAV 25's.
I could be wrong but I get the impression that there is/will be a move away from specialised systems towards networking multi-role systems.  The distinction will be in weight class and protection levels not role or offensive capability.
Quote    Reply

doggtag       10/3/2008 9:32:17 AM

At the same time we should be looking at options at the lower end of the scale say 25 to 57mm or maybe even 75mm cued by networked sensors to serve as a last ditch CRAM back up as well providing a very respectable direct fire capability in the ground defence role.  It could even be a feature of what ever we select to replace the ASLAV 25's.

Web query: SkyRanger 35mm
That's the Oerlikon 35mm Millennium Gun (1000 rpm) turret mounted to, most often, an 8x8 Piranha series chassis.
Same gun turret they offer for the static turret we've seen in various other C-RAM articles.
As to other calibers: take you pick...
40mm CTAI (give it time, they'll offer it in an AA/C-RAM system). "" target="_blank">check out page 8  for why its ammo compactness shows so much promise as an AFV armament, not to mention its APFSDS ability of tackling 150mm armor at 60° impact at 1500m.
You can go here  to read more on it.
57mm Bofors (Mk 110 naval mount, if you prefer).
IMI/OTO 60mm hypervelocity.      Having a cartridge sized about 76mm naval gun, and a shell about the size of the 57mm naval gun, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to visualize an automatic gun using this weapon, although high barrel wear from the relatively hot loads to get those high velocities, >1600m/sec, would be an issue.
ARES 75mm using CTA tech.   These people  seem to specialize in cased telescopic ammunition developments, and the ARES 75 has been suggested by various sources of giving a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of ~1425m/sec or better.
76mm OTO-type naval gun (see ARMAD, or is it ARMAT, same gun mounted into an ADA turret for mounting on tank hulls).   ,which can utilize their new Strales DART guided round and 3A+ fuze
Any of those could, at least in theory, be readily adapted to accomodate that multi-option Bofors 3P fuze ,
or something similar (like that Italian 3A+).
It doesn't take a lot of genius to see where the tech crossovers can take us (combined close range counter battery fire system, indirect fire support, and C-RAM/AA system all in one.
All it's going to take is enough interest in it, and someone with the money to invest in it and field it.
(I hope all those links work!)
Quote    Reply
1 2