• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

It's not that hard to understand when you consider that in 2010 we were still living in the fantasy scenario where Western forces would only fight counter-insurgency fights.

We didn't need 52 calibre barrels to kill dudes in man-jams and flip flops.

But JDAMS and SLCMs, OTOH ;)

explosion boom GIF by South Park
 
Firepower is one of the keys to breaking the enemy’s cohesion. It destroys, neutralizes, and suppresses. It allows movement to take place, enabling friendly forces to manoeuvre into more advantageous positions relative to the enemy. The most flexible means of applying firepower on the battlefield is through the use of field artillery

How much does it cost per hour to suppress a grid square?
How much does it cost to neutralize a point target with dumb rounds?
How much does it cost to destroy a point target with dumb rounds? A moving target?

Alternately how much does it cost to keep a grid square under observation with an FPV swarm located beyond the grid square?


1717524593748.png


I am going to suggest that any one of those copters can see the AA guns shooting at them before they are in range of the guns themselves.

A swarm of those critters seem to me to be just as likely to keep the heads of the enemy down as a constant patter of 105s. Especially if some number of them are armed with one or two 60 mm mortar bombs at about 1.4 kg a piece.
 

How much does it cost per hour to suppress a grid square?
How much does it cost to neutralize a point target with dumb rounds?
How much does it cost to destroy a point target with dumb rounds? A moving target?

Alternately how much does it cost to keep a grid square under observation with an FPV swarm located beyond the grid square?


View attachment 85754


I am going to suggest that any one of those copters can see the AA guns shooting at them before they are in range of the guns themselves.

A swarm of those critters seem to me to be just as likely to keep the heads of the enemy down as a constant patter of 105s. Especially if some number of them are armed with one or two 60 mm mortar bombs at about 1.4 kg a piece.
Unless you have good soft kill measures to go with the guns... They the swarm is just a bunch of wasted money, and the 105mm rounds would have actually landed on their intended targets.
 

How much does it cost per hour to suppress a grid square?
How much does it cost to neutralize a point target with dumb rounds?
How much does it cost to destroy a point target with dumb rounds? A moving target?

Alternately how much does it cost to keep a grid square under observation with an FPV swarm located beyond the grid square?


View attachment 85754


I am going to suggest that any one of those copters can see the AA guns shooting at them before they are in range of the guns themselves.

A swarm of those critters seem to me to be just as likely to keep the heads of the enemy down as a constant patter of 105s. Especially if some number of them are armed with one or two 60 mm mortar bombs at about 1.4 kg a piece.
Depends on the AA system. 35x173mm can go a far distance. Larger systems even further.
 
How much does it cost per hour to suppress a grid square?
How much does it cost to neutralize a point target with dumb rounds?
How much does it cost to destroy a point target with dumb rounds? A moving target?

Alternately how much does it cost to keep a grid square under observation with an FPV swarm located beyond the grid square?

These are, broadly speaking, known commodities and have been for more than a century. If you want, you can look up the 1918 British staff estimates for how many rounds it took to knock out a German gun emplacement, or how many pounds per hour of HE is required to suppress a given area. The costs aren't zero, but they are manageable.

That is, the cost-benefit relationship is well understood and has generally been considered acceptable and necessary.


A swarm of those critters seem to me to be just as likely to keep the heads of the enemy down as a constant patter of 105s.

Observation does not imply suppression or neutralization. Nor will a swarm of drones induce terror and confusion in the same way that massed fire can.

It is hard to fully appreciate the psychological effects of HE rounds impacting nearby, particularly when there is nothing you can do about it. This isn't something that can be easily replicated by other alternatives.

I am going to suggest that any one of those copters can see the AA guns shooting at them before they are in range of the guns themselves.

AAA is only one possible counter to drones. EW is another.
 
Depends on the AA system. 35x173mm can go a far distance. Larger systems even further.

Larger systems are more expensive and therefore will be fewer. Do you want to up your game to the Bofors 57 (8.5 km) or the Leonardo 76 (16 km) as used by the NATO navies? 35 mm is about 4 km.

Closing speed of a quad copter 200 km/h (???), 3 to 5 minutes reaction time. Multiple targets engaging from all quadrants and elevations.

How much discrimination with a cell phone camera at 4, 8 and 16 km? How inexpensive is it to drop a photograph into the memory of a drone and tell it to go there if it can see the target from 16 km away (ground level horizon)?

Those big guns are at best Brigade assets. Individual vehicles and packets are going to be relying on 12.7 to 30x113mm rounds and trying to make the kill on the final approach while being attacked on multiple vectors.

....

As to soft kills - soft kill systems don't seem to be stopping a steady attrition of systems on both sides.

Also - soft kills rely on radiating energy putting them at risk to SEAD capabilities, which can be mounted on loitering munitions in the swarm.
 
These are, broadly speaking, known commodities and have been for more than a century. If you want, you can look up the 1918 British staff estimates for how many rounds it took to knock out a German gun emplacement, or how many pounds per hour of HE is required to suppress a given area. The costs aren't zero, but they are manageable.

That is, the cost-benefit relationship is well understood and has generally been considered acceptable and necessary.

Which makes it an excellent benchmark.

Observation does not imply suppression or neutralization.
No it doesn't. But constant observation of the grid square by loitering munitions hovering out of range makes movement above ground a lot riskier.

Nor will a swarm of drones induce terror and confusion in the same way that massed fire can.

I'll take your word for it. But I would like to hear from some Russian and Ukrainian squaddies on the subject as well.


It is hard to fully appreciate the psychological effects of HE rounds impacting nearby, particularly when there is nothing you can do about it. This isn't something that can be easily replicated by other alternatives.

The key element, I suggest, is that of being helpless, of not being in control and not being able to respond. The sound of buzzing and the prospect of a hand-delivered 60mm in your dugout, or down your hatch, seems to prompt both sides to change their behaviour.

AAA is only one possible counter to drones. EW is another.

As I noted above, EW is not a sinecure either. ECM emits radiation creating targets.


Harpy was effectively used in Azerbaijan

And, as noted, autonomous systems like that in service on the Brimstone missiles only require a horseshoe toss with INS to get them into the fight. They can find their own targets from there. GPS is not necessary.
 
Larger systems are more expensive and therefore will be fewer. Do you want to up your game to the Bofors 57 (8.5 km) or the Leonardo 76 (16 km) as used by the NATO navies? 35 mm is about 4 km.
3-4km is still no joke, considering fragmenting warheads

Closing speed of a quad copter 200 km/h (???), 3 to 5 minutes reaction time.
You’re being overly generous with the speed.
But missing the fact that one’s guns aren’t at the front - and have layers between then and the front.
Multiple targets engaging from all quadrants and elevations.
You are looking at this like you can swarm around positions, but ignoring everything from the gun line to the front.
How much discrimination with a cell phone camera at 4, 8 and 16 km? How inexpensive is it to drop a photograph into the memory of a drone and tell it to go there if it can see the target from 16 km away (ground level horizon)?
You just made a 1/2M munition.

Those big guns are at best Brigade assets. Individual vehicles and packets are going to be relying on 12.7 to 30x113mm rounds and trying to make the kill on the final approach while being attacked on multiple vectors.
You keep missing layers.
....

As to soft kills - soft kill systems don't seem to be stopping a steady attrition of systems on both sides.

Also - soft kills rely on radiating energy putting them at risk to SEAD capabilities, which can be mounted on loitering munitions in the swarm.
Who’s SEAD? Directed Energy and other soft kill systems are focused emitting setups, they aren’t easy to target unless the drone focused has its own detection system.

Your drone swarm is a multi million dollar project based on the capabilities you are giving them.
 
Closing speed of a quad copter 200 km/h (???), 3 to 5 minutes reaction time. Multiple targets engaging from all quadrants and elevations.

That is still much slower than a fixed wing CAS aircraft, which AD platforms are able to deal with.

As to soft kills - soft kill systems don't seem to be stopping a steady attrition of systems on both sides.

They won't get everything, but they introduce quite a bit of uncertainty and cause lots of drone losses. About this time last year, RUSI estimated that the Ukrainians were losing 10000 drones per month, mostly to Russian EW activities.

Also - soft kills rely on radiating energy putting them at risk to SEAD capabilities, which can be mounted on loitering munitions in the swarm.

Drones can be Wild Weasels, but the AD systems have counters to that in the same way that they do for manned aircraft. Turning systems on or off, layering AD systems so that one method of AD serves as protection for others, etc.

No singular system of any kind can completely change warfare. Not even nuclear weapons did that.
 
3-4km is still no joke, considering fragmenting warheads


You’re being overly generous with the speed.
But missing the fact that one’s guns aren’t at the front - and have layers between then and the front.

You are looking at this like you can swarm around positions, but ignoring everything from the gun line to the front.

You just made a 1/2M munition.


You keep missing layers.

Who’s SEAD? Directed Energy and other soft kill systems are focused emitting setups, they aren’t easy to target unless the drone focused has its own detection system.

Your drone swarm is a multi million dollar project based on the capabilities you are giving them.

You get your accountants on it with your assumptions and I'll get mine with my assumptions.
 
The key element, I suggest, is that of being helpless, of not being in control and not being able to respond. The sound of buzzing and the prospect of a hand-delivered 60mm in your dugout, or down your hatch, seems to prompt both sides to change their behaviour.

The point is that the troops on the ground can take positive action when they know a drone is overhead. They can, for example, fire on it. This alone has a major psychological impact on how the threat is perceived.

There are no shortage of observations about this from WW2 - when air defences fired back at an air attack, the effects on morale were noticeable less pronounced.

With artillery, the people on the receiving end are essentially helpless.

And, as noted, autonomous systems like that in service on the Brimstone missiles only require a horseshoe toss with INS to get them into the fight. They can find their own targets from there. GPS is not necessary.

INS is not cheap.
 

Harpy seems to be about 1 MUSD a piece. Octocopters with 60mm bombs are in the 100 KUSD range (or about the price of a single Javelin missile) and FPV are less than 1000 each.

A couple of Harpies tending a flock of Octocopters and FPVs will slow down the ECM response.
 
Re the cost of INS -

Everything is relative.

The price for an inertial navigation system (INS) can range from $3,000 to $50,000, depending on the features and capabilities of the system.

 
That is still much slower than a fixed wing CAS aircraft, which AD platforms are able to deal with.



They won't get everything, but they introduce quite a bit of uncertainty and cause lots of drone losses. About this time last year, RUSI estimated that the Ukrainians were losing 10000 drones per month, mostly to Russian EW activities.



Drones can be Wild Weasels, but the AD systems have counters to that in the same way that they do for manned aircraft. Turning systems on or off, layering AD systems so that one method of AD serves as protection for others, etc.

No singular system of any kind can completely change warfare. Not even nuclear weapons did that.

Nobody is saying that any singular system is going to completely change warfare.

But low cost platforms with multiple capabilities will throw the emphasis on to a different syllable.
 
Re the cost of INS -

Everything is relative.



INS by itself isn’t exceptional accurate.

Hence GPS and INS linked systems.
 
INS by itself isn’t exceptional accurate.

Hence GPS and INS linked systems.

Got that. But add one INS pathfinder in a swarm to a cluster of DAMASK type 1980s vintage seekers and you don't need GPS.
 

Harpy seems to be about 1 MUSD a piece. Octocopters with 60mm bombs are in the 100 KUSD range (or about the price of a single Javelin missile) and FPV are less than 1000 each.

A couple of Harpies tending a flock of Octocopters and FPVs will slow down the ECM response.

100k each?

Every asset you add to harden, make more precise, improve pay load, or increase range exponetionally increases price and production time lines. I see 24 drones carrying one 60mm each and I see a job a mortar team can do just as easily.

I really want you to listen to the podcast War on the Rocks, particularly the episode discussing drone operations, and given some time to Micheal Koffman’s analysis of drone warfare. The limitations and propaganda aspect are laid out pretty clearly. Even the Ukrainians don’t see it as an artillery replacement.
 
Back
Top