Posted on 04/12/2005 8:09:55 PM PDT by spetznaz
April 11, 2005: The U.S. Army continues to try developing an artillery shell that can hit with precision accuracy. Two new such shells are about to enter service: Excalibur and PGK.
Back in the 1980s, the 155mm Copperhead round was developed, at great expense, to take out tanks with one shell. The Copperhead was laser guided. That is, it homed in on laser light that a forward observer, with a laser “gun”, was creating by pointing the laser at the target. Same deal with laser guided bombs. But this was expensive technology. Each of the 3,000 Copperhead shells cost several hundred thousands dollars (the price varied, up to half a million bucks, depending on was doing the calculating). And it turned out there were many easier, and cheaper, ways to destroy enemy tanks. This was demonstrated during the 1991 Gulf War, when a few Copperhead shells were used, successfully, but to reactions of, “so what?” However, Russia developed its own version of Copperhead, Krasnopol, and sold some to India. During a 1999 war with Pakistan, high in the Himalayan mountains, Krasnopol proved very useful in taking out enemy bunkers, without causing avalanches or destroying the few pathways up the steep hills. The Indians paid about $40,000 for each Krasnopol shell (two thirds what the Copperhead was supposed to cost), and found it a good investment. This encouraged the American developers of the next generation smart shell, Excalibur, which already had several years of design and research invested.
The Excalibur shell, which will be issued to artillery units within the next year, uses GPS guidance. It’s expected to cost about $50,000 each, and land a shell within 30 feet of the target. Actual tests have shown the shells will land within half that distance. The army wants this kind of accuracy for fighting in urban areas, and to reduce the number of shells needed to destroy a target. Accuracy in urban areas reduces civilian casualties, and allows friendly troops to be closer to the target. Both of these factors make a big difference. Fewer civilian casualties, saves lives, keeps the media off your back, and creates good will among civilians in the combat zone. Having your troops closer to the target allows the infantry to rush in after the shell hits and quickly mop up the surviving enemy troops. This reduces your casualties, and puts the fear of Excalibur into the enemy troops. Both are good things.
Right now, the Excalibur will be competing with the new U.S. Air Force “small diameter bomb” (SDB). This 250 pound device, which looks like a missile, but is an unguided smart bomb, weighs twice as much as Excalibur, and thus produces a bigger bang. But you need an air force bomber overhead to get a SDB, while army artillery is always there. You also need an air force FAC (Forward Air Controller) nearby to call in the bomb, while there are many more army personnel who can call for artillery. The SDB costs about as much as Excalibur. Another competitor is the GPS guided MLRS rocket. But because rockets are less accurate than artillery shells to begin with, GPS guided MLRS cannot hit targets as accurately as SDB or Excalibur.
The third generation smart shell is also in development. This is the Projectile Guidance Kit (PGK), which is actually a large fuze, that screws into the front of a 155mm or 105mm shell. This longer “fuze” contains a GPS and small fins to guide the shell to a precision hit equal to an Excalibur shell. The army doesn’t expect to be passing these out to the troops for another five years. But if development goes smoothly, and Excalibur proves useful and popular, then the PGK might show up earlier. The PGK will cost less than half what each Excalibur does and, more importantly, can turn any shell into a smart shell. This is important for artillerymen, who don’t like to carry around a lot of special shells, “just in case.” Artillery units already carry several different types of fuzes for their shells, so one more is not seen as a burden.
The pinnacle of artillery operations has always been, “one shot, one kill.” But achieving this has always been like a golfer getting a hole in one. It can be done, but it’s rare. Smart shells make “one shot, one kill” commonplace, and mean artillerymen will spend less time constantly replenishing their ammunition supplies. Firing the cannon less often is also nice, as those beasts are a bitch to keep clean.
Ping.
ping
For crying out loud, why didn't they name this "small bomb drop" or something like that, so it would be called an SBD?
You also need an air force FAC (Forward Air Controller) nearby to call in the bomb
I know so many dumb FAC's. Pun intended!
Hmmm. GPS golf balls. I wonder how much golfers would pay for that?
Last year I was at a (public and unclassified) presentation given by a professor from the Air War College who was talking about the small diameter bomb with the B-2. It would be able to hit about 200 separate targets in one mission.
> Of particular interest was the impact it might have
> on the Airforce.
That might be self-inflicted political fallout ...
"You also need an air force FAC (Forward Air Controller)
nearby to call in the bomb, ..."
Another article recently reported that the USAF was
refusing to teach Army folks to be FACs, and insisting
that FACs not only be from BlueManGroup, but that they
be actual pilots.
That might have made some sense in the era of dumb
bombs requiring skilled aviators, but nowadays the
target mostly just needs to be within the coverage
cone of the weapon, and be adequately painted or
coordinated.
This is absolutely nuts.
We should want maximum civilian casualties. As long as soldiers fight soldiers and civilians remain safe, there will never be an end to war.
I don't understand this term. A smart bomb is ipso facto guided, ergo I read unguided smart bomb as, "unguided GUIDED bomb".
Non?
You're wrong about that.
A smart weapon is one that has the abality to change its trajectory while in flight on its own. While a dumb bomb can not make any course changes, and falls relativly vertical with some foreward momentum from the weapon system that propelled it. I did explain it ok , or is it as clear as mud.
I agree, on a certain level. I really wish there was a cost-effective way to keep the Iowa class ships. They are a thing to behold.
A new, nuclear-plant, long range missile + heavy artillery version might just be made to work.
I wonder why they couldn't keep on in a scaled down version. I mean, just as floating artillery. Not worry about the defensive systems, battledamage etc. Just automate as much as possible, shut down all non essential functions, and crew with a minimum crew for the mission. Nothing packs the punch those 14 inch guns had. Made a great missle platform as well.
bleh. can't believe you said this.
I agree that they are a majestic platform. I was priviledged enough to have the BB New Jersey firing some big-ol' rounds over my head on some exercises some years ago. It was a thing to behold.
Word I heard was that the boats were just too old to fix. The power plants needed total replacement, and fixing them would have cost more than a whole new boat. Sad, but understandable.
What are you smoking
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.