Is Smoothbore the future of artilley?

[JoaMei]

Seeing the saboted unguided Vulcano round can reach 70 km range from standard rifled guns like PzH2000, the next logical step would be using smothbore guns.
The round is fin stabilised anyway so rifling wont be needed.
Not to speak of GPS guided versions or those with terminal homing sensors.

Opinions?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=92229

[tercio67]

Cost of ammunition is the deciding factor imho.
What of carrier projectiles?, smoothbore fin stabilised projectiles lack internal volume. Rocket assisted ammunitions are a possible solution to that but are again expensive.
I see a great future for smoothbore automated mortars thoug.

[JoaMei]

Internal volume/explosives ok, but would a unguided saboted projectile be that more expensive than a normal one?

[tercio67]

The cost of completely redesigning both the ammunitions and the artillery systems will be high.
The range of current extended range munitions (base-bleed or rocket-assisted) is sufficient for the artillery systems of today.

The real advantage will come from guided munitions, the Course Correction Fuse will instantly make smart weapons out of 'dumb' HE rounds.
Laser guidanse can bring even greater accuracy and reduse collateral damage.

[RSone]

Seeing the saboted unguided Vulcano round can reach 70 km range from standard rifled guns like PzH2000, the next logical step would be using smothbore guns.
The round is fin stabilised anyway so rifling wont be needed.
Not to speak of GPS guided versions or those with terminal homing sensors.

Opinions?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=92229

The RNLN is interested in Volcano,for the guns on the Zeven Provinciën class, i believe part of the programme is funded by them.Don't on wether or not the Dutch Army wants the shells for their PzH's though, although there's interest in RAM's and precision guided shells.

[tercio67]

The RNLN is interested in Volcano,for the guns on the Zeven Provinciën class, i believe part of the programme is funded by them.Don't on wether or not the Dutch Army wants the shells for their PzH's though, although there's interest in RAM's and precision guided shells.

First, the Vulcano 127mm is a (gps) guided round, and rated for +65km.
The 155mm artillery version of this round currently only exists on paper.
If this round will be taken in production it will have a (projected) range of 76km in combination with the PzH2000.
This option was under consideration for the Netherlands but as of yet the projectile has not been produced.
For now the dutch army will get both the, BAE, Course Correction Fuze (CCF) and a, Rheinmetal, Laser Guided (LG) projectile , currently on order and to be delivered in 2011.
Extended range, base-bleed, projectiles (+40km) are currently being used in Afghanistan.

[crazyman]

As a rule, most western artillery corps are going for precision, not range. The mission of most tube artillery is direct support, AKA close fires. In my experience in the field (5 years as an artillery officer in the US army), we try and operate from as close as possible to the target area. 70Ks sounds to me like a job for the air force or for GMLRS/ATACMS. In my opinion its a nice concept, but has little application.

[Silent Reader]

As a rule, most western artillery corps are going for precision, not range. The mission of most tube artillery is direct support, AKA close fires. In my experience in the field (5 years as an artillery officer in the US army), we try and operate from as close as possible to the target area. 70Ks sounds to me like a job for the air force or for GMLRS/ATACMS. In my opinion its a nice concept, but has little application.


but with guided rounds you would have precision and range ^^
and i guess those would be cheaper than GMLRS

[Jippo]

As a rule, most western artillery corps are going for precision, not range. The mission of most tube artillery is direct support, AKA close fires. In my experience in the field (5 years as an artillery officer in the US army), we try and operate from as close as possible to the target area. 70Ks sounds to me like a job for the air force or for GMLRS/ATACMS. In my opinion its a nice concept, but has little application.

I should think it is by far cheaper to shell a target than it is to bomb it.

[flanker7]

Safer also :-)

[GNR]

As a rule, most western artillery corps are going for precision, not range. The mission of most tube artillery is direct support, AKA close fires. In my experience in the field (5 years as an artillery officer in the US army), we try and operate from as close as possible to the target area. 70Ks sounds to me like a job for the air force or for GMLRS/ATACMS. In my opinion its a nice concept, but has little application.

Crazyman has some good points here.

Deconflicting the airspace is already time consuming and restrictive enough with the shorter distances we have now.

[Jippo]

Crazyman has some good points here.

Deconflicting the airspace is already time consuming and restrictive enough with the shorter distances we have now.

There aren't too many militaries in the world with such problems. Think outside of your own box too.

[GNR]

There aren't too many militaries in the world with such problems. Think outside of your own box too.

Say again?

Every military will has these same issues, you don't want to take down a friendly cas-evac, UAV, jetfighter or civilian jetliner accidently.

[Jippo]

Say again?

Every military will has these same issues, you don't want to take down a friendly cas-evac, UAV, jetfighter or civilian jetliner accidently.

I simply meant that you have far more available air assets, and thus air activity, than any other military in the world. For instance, in my army hitting an UAV or a fighter jet would be an added bonus since it would enemy's in 95% of the cases. :)

[GNR]

I simply meant that you have far more available air assets, and thus air activity, than any other military in the world. For instance, in my army hitting an UAV or a fighter jet would be an added bonus since it would enemy's in 95% of the cases. :)

I'm Canadian, we don't have much more than you, regardless we tend to work in coalitions more and more often, shooting down a friendly, from our country or not is not something we would want to happen.

[Jippo]

Oh I though you were from the US, sorry about that.

[crazyman]

this is actually a somewhat educated, well-thought out discussion, I'm amazed. Deconfliction is an excellent point I honestly didnt think about bringing up, since I was trying to keep my thoughts from going too OIF-centric. FYI an excalibur goes several tens of thousands of feet in to the air during a shot, so there is a LOT of air to clear (which the air force hates doing). To add some info to some issues mentioned:

i dont think theres' much of a difference in safety when it comes to artillery vs CAS. In Iraq leaders often lean towards use of GPS-guided munitions (GMLRS, excalibur, SDP, JDAM, concrete bombs). all of these systems have their uses, and all are accurate to degrees that are incredible. cost is a good point, but I dont think theres' a huge difference in the price of a GMLRS round vs a JDAM, or excaliber vs a concrete-JDAM (exactly what it sounds like, uses kinetic energy from the drop to do damage instead of HE, pretty cool option when you dont want to take down more than one house)

I think working through the range-shell limitation is a cool idea, and well worth looking in a direction other than RAP, but I'm not sure I see the applications given how we (most western nations) fight. Lord knows ive been wrong before.

[Jippo]

We have artillery fire sectors that do not need to be cleared at all, it is the airforce that has to go around.

When I think about the price of the fires, I think of the organisations. Airforce wastes hell of a lot of manpower and other assets like fuel to deliver a munition. In arty someone drives the round to the position in a truck and then in to the barrel & on it's merry way it goes. Even if the artillery round was more expensive than a JDAM, I think it would be far cheaper to deploy.

[crazyman]

indeed. The advantage of tube artillery on aircraft is the lower prep time and the sustainability of fires. the AF has to fly out of lord knows where, get to you, drop its bombs, and go back home for bingo night. In Iraq there are typically several howitzers on standby with crews a few feet of way playing cards, ready to react within a minute. Unfortunatly the powers that be in Iraq have become fixated on CAS because the air force jumped on the GPS bandwagon well before we did.

[JoaMei]

Basically a Vulcano with GPS Guidance could do most Support Jobs up to a range of 100 km.

Remember, when a UAV carries weapons this has negative effects on endurance and it has to be a comparably large UAV.

[crazyman]

COULD, i would say, is the key word. at that distance, youd have to have one hell of an observation platform...like, oh say an airplaine. We dont just fire at grids based on what S2 says is there, we have an observer to verify, evaluate, etc. aircraft do this via a variety of pods they all carry on missions for this very purpose. Could doesnt mean should or will. sorry if this comes off as condescending, not my intent. I simply mean to differenciate between capability and applicability

[GNR]

COULD, i would say, is the key word. at that distance, youd have to have one hell of an observation platform...like, oh say an airplaine. We dont just fire at grids based on what S2 says is there, we have an observer to verify, evaluate, etc. aircraft do this via a variety of pods they all carry on missions for this very purpose. Could doesnt mean should or will. sorry if this comes off as condescending, not my intent. I simply mean to differenciate between capability and applicability

It's not condescending at all.

And I agree we could shoot off google earth if we really wanted to, but the ability doesn't mean we should.

[tercio67]

In the end it is about 'Fire Support' and the availability thereof.

Ground based fire support will be available 24/7, can switch easely to different conditions with different munitions, but will always have a range limitation.
Overlapping, mutualy supportive, firebases can overcome this problem.

Air based (rotary or fixed) fire support will give you range with limited time over target and what is carried is what you get (airial refueling will extend the time but not the weaponload). However 'buzzing' a location is non lethal but at the same time demonstrates capability.

In todays battlefield collateral damage is to be avoided, there will always be the CNN-factor, and public opinion can win or lose a conflict.

It will be up to the ground commander to choose from the available tools in order to create the desired effect. To aid him he has advisors in the form of FO's and FAC's and for coordination the (Joint)FSCC.
His/her experiance in the past will color his vision, and hopefully that experiance will lead him/her to take care of deconfliction in the planning stage and not during the execution.
Deconfliction is not a big problem, just another task in the planning fase.

Just my input and thougts on the subject.

[crazyman]

spoken like a man who has spent some time at Ft Sill.

[tercio67]

spoken like a man who has spent some time at Ft Sill.

If you are referring to me I must dissapoint you.
I am just a sargeant major in the Dutch army.
My field however is artillery, both as operator and as an instructor.

[RSone]

spoken like a man who has spent some time at Ft Sill.


If you are referring to me I must dissapoint you.
I am just a sargeant major in the Dutch army.
My field however is artillery, both as operator and as an instructor.


What matters is that you know what you're talking about:)

[crazyman]

my mistake...wherever it is y'all teach artillery obviously is doing as good a job as ft sill does for us

[EZFEED]

You get allot more velocity with a smoothbore gun. A projectile engaging rifling creates drag and heat and lowers the velocity of the projectile. Get the projo faster and you can punch through more armor with a lighter round, downside is accuracy diminishes without the positive mechanical stabilization. Also because the proj doesn't engage the inside surface of the barrel, no lateral stresses, so the barrel can have a thinner wall thickness and more shots can be fired without rapid overheating.