150mm rockets for TOWs

[Sayeret]

TOW Anti Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) systems are impressive in the anti-tank role, but have little value against other threats. TOW missiles can be fired at regular ground targets, but at $18,000 per missile, they are too valuable to waste on most infantry targets. Firing TOW missiles during firefights with infantry is also dangerous since the gunner must remain stationary to guide the slow missile for up to 20 seconds after its large backblast reveals his location. The TOW takes at least 65 meters to arm and a couple hundred meters for the gunner to reaquire control after initial firing, making them unable to point/shoot at close-range urban targets. Since today's Soldiers will encounter infantry far more often than tanks, inexpensive 150mm rockets are the answer.

Simple 150mm 50 lbs rockets would allow TOWs to be used in the same way the U.S. Army once employed 106mm recoilless rifles mounted on jeeps. The TOW has excellent optical and forward-looking infra-red (FLIR) sights which enable it to accurately fire unguided munitions. If enemy infantry is dug into concealed defensive positions, a battalion can send up its HMMWV-TOWs, or Bradley’s M901 ITVs or LAV-ATs and blast away with direct fire. During firefights, TOW gunners could shoot a rocket and immediately scoot into a protected position to avoid enemy counterfire.

Since rockets would not be attached to the launcher with wire, crews would be able to rapidly reload TOW tubes. TOW rockets would carry blast/fragmentation HE warheads, which are more effective against infantry than shaped anti-armor HE warheads. In addition, a rocket can carry a much larger HE warhead in place of the electronics and guidance components needed for TOW missiles.

Hughes/Ratheon Missile Systems, which currently manufactures the advanced TOW-2B missiles, should be able to produce "dumb" rockets for around $500 each. However, Hughes may not be interested in producing low-cost/low-profit munitions. Fortunately, there are a dozen manufacturers in the USA which can manufacture 150mm rockets. Lockheed-Martin currently manufactures an assortment of 70mm "Hydra" rockets for use by aircraft; producing 150mm rockets should easy. Competition to produce 150mm rockets would drive the price down even lower, especially with the potential for sales to foreign TOW customers.

[Michael RVR]

****ing tightarses. :P

woot

[GazB]

ATGMs with HE warheads are rather more useful than dumb unguided 150mm rockets.
Wonder why the US doesn't just modify the AT-4 system they already use to add a version with a HE FRAG warhead?
A direct fire rocket will seriously lack the range of the TI sight fitted to any TOW launcher and lets face it... how mobile are most TOW systems?
It makes rather more sense to evolve either a reusable or disposable system that any soldier can carry... much like a new type of LAW or RPG-7 or Carl Gustav.

the advantage of TOWs with HE warheads is that a sniper or MG nest cannot return fire to a TOW post 3.5km away but a TOW could easily hit a point target like a Sniper position or bunker position with an MG in it.

There is no way an unguided 150mm weapon could be effective at more than 1km or so, so why bother wasting space in a TOW crews inventory with an inaccuracte dumb missile?

Or perhaps they are finding they have no use for TOW posts because airpower or M1A2s are dealing with enemy armour before the TOW teams get into position?

[Sabre]

Interesting, it's similar to the russian approach of launching guided missiles from MBT main guns to extend their range...except in reverse.

I think that's where it may fall down, it is an expensive, accurate system. Downgrading it to a simple rocket launcher may be a waste of time. Why not just make simple rocket lauchers or re-introduce recoiless rifles and fit them to separate vehicles?

Otherwise, you are in a situation where a potential anti-armour/high value target system is tied down in engaging low-value targets. In addition, the potential for hitting higher value targets is reduced due to the need to carry 150mm rockets.

I'm a fan of the old RPG/Carl Gustav team. Whether they are based on foot or given mobility, they are more flexible in terms of engaging enemy in close quarters/urban terrain, without the vulnerability of a vehicle in such an environment.

Just my thoughts.

[GazB]

I'm a fan of the old RPG/Carl Gustav team. Whether they are based on foot or given mobility, they are more flexible in terms of engaging enemy in close quarters/urban terrain, without the vulnerability of a vehicle in such an environment.


I agree... I think the reason many Carl Gustavs were withdrawn was because they were seen as short range AT systems only. As is common knowledge with those who have faced the RPG-7 (and that includes the US forces in Grenada and many other places like Somalia and now Afghanistan and Iraq) that there are lots of targets a direct fire rocket launcher can be useful against. Milans were used against MG positions and snipers in the Falklands simply because there was no other weapon capable of engaging bunkers and other fortifications are range. Obviously the cost of Milans would make general use of them for that role too expensive, but a HE FRAG warhead for a Carl Gustav would be just as effective if fro a shorter range. (unfortunately the CG wasn't issued in the British Army with anything but the HEAT rounds I think).

40mm underbarrel grenade launchers are nice but lack the punch required.

By Default a CG or RPG-7 are mobile, light and quite accurate out to about 300-400m. Are easy to use and cheap enough to use widely.

[Adam Wilhelm]

I agree... I think the reason many Carl Gustavs were withdrawn was because they were seen as short range AT systems only.

When the Grg m/48 came in to service 1948 with the swedish military it didn´t had any HEAT. The HEAT shell didn´t became operational until 1956.

Today is the HEAT shell just not up to date against the most modern MBT and IFV. So in my opinion the Grg (Carl Gustav) is for mainly firing the HE shell against troops and trucks.
And it´s a lot cheaper than firing a Milan or TOW against a GMPG.

Just my 2 cents. :D

[Hellfish]

Well you've got to figure that every Air Assault infantry battalion has, IIRC, 20 TOW humvees - that's a lot of potential there for a direct fire rocket. Remember the attack on Uday and Qusay? They used TOWs to attack the house they were at - could the same have been accomplished with an unguided 150mm rocket?

The way the modern battlefields have shaped up, there aren't many opportunities to kill tanks. I don't think it's an entirely bad idea to give those TOW humvees (or even Bradleys) some HE or thermobaric rockets in place of the TOWs. I think the humvee could carry around 10 TOWs, give them 4 TOWs, 4 HE rockets and 2 thermobaric rockets instead and you've got a very versatile infantry support platform. Or reduce the number of TOW mounts available to the AT company in the air assault battalion and provide some mounts for a 4-round 70mm hydra rocket system, which can have HE, Smoke, WP-Smoke, HE-Flechette or submunition warheads which would still be highly useful.

[von_Moo142]

What with the trend for developing thermobaric RPG rounds, I'm suprised this isn't an option for systems like TOW.