Posted on 11/29/2003 7:43:42 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
Darksheare, you legacy of industrial age warfare, get with the program and embrace transition. The lessons of history have been overtaken by technology.
And for chow tonight we have Bubble Up and Rainbow Stew.
It is a Gopher, known in Russian service as the ZRK-BD Strela-10.
Specifically, it's a multiple-tube launcher on the MTLB tracked chassis. How long until either a dual-purpose AA/AT missile is fielded, or an AT missile capable of being fired from the same mounts?
The SA-13 transporter erector launcher and radar (TELARis a modified MT-LB amphibious armored tracked vehicle with the machine-gun turret removed. The launcher pedestal mounted to the rear of center of the vehicle is 360º traversable. It incorporates the operators position behind a large, rectangular window at its base.
Normally the TELAR carries four ready to fire SA-13 missile container-launchers and eight reloads in the cargo compartment but it can also carry either SA-9 GASKIN container-launcher boxes in their place or a mixture of the two. This enables the the cheaper SA-9 (Strela-1) to be used against the easier targets and the more expensive and sophisticated SA-13 (Strela-10) against the difficult targets. The missile mix also allows a choice of infra-red (IR) seeker types on the missiles for use against extremely low altitude targets and in adverse weather.
Next addition: a long-range AT version, like the LCPK guidance package for the NATO Hydra-70 2.75 helicopter-pod mounted rockets?
-archy-/-
Just so. Only two of the Crusaders could be carried aboard a C-17. And if it was necessary to suddenly move a battery of Crusaders around in-theater, it would take C-17s to do it; as they couldn't be moved aboard C-130s.
Oh, and the number of Strykers that can be carried aboard a C-17. Also two. And once they arrive in-theater and have their anti-RPG slatted armor added, the number of Strykers that can be carried aboard a C-130? Also zero.
You're a commander; you get your choice of a C-17 airlift of vehicles, two available planes worth. You can have two loads of Crusaders, four vehicles with 155MM guns with a 20KM+ range, and mounting a .50 machinegun each. And if you can get a third planeload, a pair of ammo support vehicles.
Or you can get two planeloads of Strykers, each with a .50 MG. If you get the third planeload, you've got a total six armored cars with MGs on their roofs, max range 2,000 meters, realistic range 1,200. You choose.
-archy-/-
The C-17 would be the best choice of all. It's proving itself to be the Rolls Royce of airlifters, and well-liked.
BUT...
We're already using up airframe time on them faster than new ones can be built. If I was "thinking outside the box", I'd use Army funding to second-source the C-17 to another airframer, and then give them to the AF, with the orders that that number of aircraft will always be instantly available to the Army on a moment's notice. Heck, I'd even have the Army pay for the slots for the AF guys that flew them.
I think the Army would get far more benefit, and have far fewer problems, buying $10 billion of C-17 over $10 billion of Stryker. Far fewer miracles are required that way.
Hypervelocity munitions will abound...so to will the counter to Electric technology..that being EMP and multi phasing EMP weapons.
Armies will need sheiding..from armor suites to field generators on battle equipment..or they will be *Microwaved to death where they sit and stand.
With certain nations falling behind in the arms race..the temptation to use EMP burst on the battlefield ,air and sea will be tempting.... their only feasible response.
Pandoras box will be opened when Micro nukes finally appear.
Jihadi to some Arab armies may purchase said devices from 3rd party brokers...Europe and China...Russia too if they can keep their hands clean.
I can forsee Egypt loosing all her M1A1's in the Sinai to Israel in such a scenario....from searing their attenna's and cascade failure progression on electronics..to EMP'ing the area above them via nukes.
Massed mechanized forces may be in for a rude suprise in the near future.
Part two of a three-part series on our evolving armed forces
NORRISTOWN - Talk of military transformation is an abstract notion for many U.S. Army Reserve troops rebuilding war-torn Iraq thousands of miles from home. The burning question on their minds is: When will we get transformed from soldiers to civilians again?
That doesn't seem to be the lesson learned by the Russians after reviewing the casualty lists of their forces in Afghanistan and Chechnya after taking hits in BTR/BMP light armored vehicles. Instead the Russians are upgrading the armor on their heavier MTLB tracks and rebuilding old T55 and T72 tanks into heavy personnel carriers. As are the Israelis....
Where the light armoured vehicles are retained, it appears to be in order to take advantage of their amphibious capability. Of which we have precious few vehicles so capable....
-archy-/-
Rumor had it that a GPS guided round was being developed for artillery.
I'm assuming it would be able to be modified for tanks as well.
Down to 81/82mm for mortars now too, per the British terminally-guided Merlin 81mm mortar round for their L16 81mm- AKA the U.S. M252. Mortars have such a lovely incoming trajectory for use with self-forging antitank penetrator weapons....
And the US Army has the XM395 laser-guided 120mm mortar round almost ready for fielding in FY 2006. 
Also IIRC, your point was mainly talking about the molecular structure of materials and hyper-kinetic weapons up to that point. Shaped charge weapons are a different beast as you pointed out later in the thread.
Somebody in the building got sold a "shazzam" briefing, didn't they? LOL!
Silly person. It was already explained about the pecking order in transporting Army equipment vs. everybody else's. And IIRC, the maneuver force had to stop several times and wait for the M109s to catch up in Gulf War I. The Paladin has a weight somewhere around 31 1/2 tons (IIRC) so the transportation problem you allude to isn't solved by killing the Crusader program.
For RAP, or base-bleed projectiles, but not for Copperhead/ CGLP, closer to 15KM. See previous discussion of 152/155mm projos and range here, including those that make mushroom clouds and leave their targets glowing with something other than pride of accomplishment.
Seems to me that weight is a problem.
Not if the aircraft in which you plan to move it in can cheerfully handle either, and is limited from carrying a third vehicle inside due to bulk and spacial limitations rather than weight.
I'd think a more real limitation would be found in Korea, where many of the bridges are Class 50s that won't take the weight of either a Crusader or an Abrams tank. But noone has suggested getting rid of all our Abrams tanks to take on North Korean tank divisions with good intentions instead, should it come to that.
We sold the South Koreans a bushel basket of our reworked M48A5s for a little over $1000 each, a real bargain, and just light enough to be workable over those bridges, [even M60A1s were over-heavy] while American M1A2 Abrams tanks did the job where they could. A similar mix of Crusaders and M109A6/A7 Paladins would seem to be the redleg equivalent.
A valid strategy, in the short term. They are up against RPG7 type stuff for the most part.
I'm not saying that armor is not useful right now, just that the clock is ticking on the battlefield life for heavy armor and the military knows it and is planning for this in future deployments. I expect future armor systems to have advanced "medium" armor, not enough to protect against a direct hit from a modern anti-armor weapon, but enough to protect against an irregular using weaker weapons. Shaped-charge based anti-armor weapons will always be vulnerable to armor systems because it places restrictions on the environment (e.g. standoff distance) for it to work correctly. Hyperkinetic weapons are different ball of wax, since they are not dependent on the properties of what they hit to work well. Older kinetic energy weapons (like tank sabots) couldn't be driven fast enough to cross the threshold where the dart is no longer selective about its terminal behavior, though still highly effective.
I'm not saying that we should forego armor (or go with the Stryker), but that we should plan armor to deal with the threats it can deal with and ignore the rest. Just like there is no amount of armor you can practically put on a person to stop a 30mm round, there is no amount of armor you can practically put on a tank to stop a hyperkinetic penetrator. On the other hand, there is still plenty one can do (both passive and active) to deal with shaped-charge weapons, and these typically don't require nearly as much real armor as defending against KE type weapons.
Mortars are great for just about any target if you put a smart head (or cluster of smart independently targeted heads) on them. They are also nice and portable.
The US military has been investing a ton of money in advanced mortar systems. Not only are they building new mortar platforms out of composite materials (the new versions of the classic mortars weigh half as much as the ones they replace), but they are making them very smart guided munitions by default, with smart self-homing (i.e. no target designation required -- the warhead searches for a target on the way down) under late-stage development.
This is part of the reason that artillery is getting cut. The US military has decided to put its money in substantially upgrading the lethality and capabilities of the mortar systems for indirect fire missions, in part because it is cheap and very portable, and then leaving the long-range and heavy targets to the Air Force. It is an issue of maximizing bang for the logistical buck. One can make arguments against this, but this is the calculus that was used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.