A US Army M109A6 has managed to destroy a cruise missile with a special Mach-5 shell during trials in White Sands, New Mexico:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/09/06/sci-fi-awesome-a-us-army-howitzer-just-shot-down-a-cruise-missile/
Hosted by Darren Baker
Artillery vs cruise missiles!? Hell, yeah!
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Monday, September 07, 2020 - 06:42 AM UTC
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, September 07, 2020 - 01:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
A US Army M109A6 has managed to destroy a cruise missile with a special Mach-5 shell during trials in White Sands, New Mexico:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/09/06/sci-fi-awesome-a-us-army-howitzer-just-shot-down-a-cruise-missile/
I wouldn't count my eggs just yet as reading the column I saw one major flaw! BAE
gary
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Monday, September 07, 2020 - 03:29 PM UTC
I wonder if a target drone has the same flight characteristics
as a cruise missile?
as a cruise missile?
Frenchy
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, September 07, 2020 - 05:36 PM UTC
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, September 07, 2020 - 06:57 PM UTC
you do know the Japanese were the first to do an anti aircraft round with a big gun? The 18" round had a canister round just for hitting aircraft. Always wondered whatkind of a pattern the got out of that beast.
gary
gary
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Monday, September 07, 2020 - 08:05 PM UTC
Quoted Text
you do know the Japanese were the first to do an anti aircraft round with a big gun? The 18" round had a canister round just for hitting aircraft. Always wondered whatkind of a pattern the got out of that beast.
gary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)
The shell design was also made for smaller calibres
RLlockie
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Monday, September 07, 2020 - 08:33 PM UTC
Batterie Mirus on Guernsey (equipped with four ex-Russian 30.5cm guns) had an AA fire plan by which it would fire a box barrage. It was used at least once and the British aircraft made a hasty withdrawal, no doubt for clean underwear.
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 12:49 AM UTC
I don't see the point. Field Artillery (FA) pieces are designed to support ground maneuver as they move forward on the ground.
Air Defense Artillery (ADA) shoots down air threats. They have their own designated systems to do so, such as Avenger, Patriot, and THAAD. These all work well.
As a Field Artilleryman, why do I want to carry and train on air defense weapons. As a maneuver commander, I want my artillery carrying munitions that support my fight, not shooting down air threats that the ADA can deal with.
Air Defense Artillery (ADA) shoots down air threats. They have their own designated systems to do so, such as Avenger, Patriot, and THAAD. These all work well.
As a Field Artilleryman, why do I want to carry and train on air defense weapons. As a maneuver commander, I want my artillery carrying munitions that support my fight, not shooting down air threats that the ADA can deal with.
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 03:43 AM UTC
I wonder who finds ands tracks the CM? and will the howitzer turret be fast enough to get on and follow target?
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 04:24 AM UTC
Could the howitzer have been used as firing platform to test the shell before proceeding with the development of the firing platform?
Scottosaurus
Joined: February 15, 2006
KitMaker: 83 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 07:01 AM UTC
I'm fascinated by the M107 that was parked beside the M109A7 and fired just beforehand (it really rocked after firing, and the barrel wiggled for quite a while afterwards!). I didn't realize that any M107s were still in service.
Cheers,
Scott
Cheers,
Scott
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 07:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I didn't realize that any M107s were still in service.
There are not any still in service. They were all retired in the mid-late '70s. That one must have been dug out of mothballs from somewhere.
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 07:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm fascinated by the M107 that was parked beside the M109A7 and fired just beforehand (it really rocked after firing, and the barrel wiggled for quite a while afterwards!). I didn't realize that any M107s were still in service.
Cheers,
Scott
M110A2???
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 07:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
M110A2???
It looks like a long-barrel M107 to me too. Unless they mounted a 155mm barrel onto an M110 chassis just for the purpose of the test.
metalhead85
#519
Joined: March 24, 2006
KitMaker: 219 posts
Armorama: 169 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 09:28 AM UTC
You would think they would be consulting experienced artillery commanders Gino.....yeah right lol!
Rich
Rich
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 01:36 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Textyou do know the Japanese were the first to do an anti aircraft round with a big gun? The 18" round had a canister round just for hitting aircraft. Always wondered whatkind of a pattern the got out of that beast.
gary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)
The shell design was also made for smaller calibres
I never knew that! I only knew of the 18" round. Knowing what to expect from a 90mm and a 152mm "can round", I'd almost guess they covered a city block! Just sounds evil!!
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 02:18 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't see the point. Field Artillery (FA) pieces are designed to support ground maneuver as they move forward on the ground.
Air Defense Artillery (ADA) shoots down air threats. They have their own designated systems to do so, such as Avenger, Patriot, and THAAD. These all work well.
As a Field Artilleryman, why do I want to carry and train on air defense weapons. As a maneuver commander, I want my artillery carrying munitions that support my fight, not shooting down air threats that the ADA can deal with.
as often as I love to be the opposite of your thoughts; for once I agree! Looking back at my 19 month & three day enlistment into indentured slavery, I see two types of HE (even though they were similar), WP, smoke, Cofram, illumination, and maybe one more I'm missing. We shot smoke once in fifteen months! Fired Cofram maybe a half dozen times in the ten months we had them, but when needed they were the best option. The second type of HE was nothing but a special lot number for shooting close to friendlies, and we did that part too often. We had three time fuses, and two were almost identical! The odd ball one was used maybe twice in fifteen months!
We shot mostly charge seven white bag behind an HE round. Shot a lot of rounds I might add. Yet we would often be tasked with shooting a depth con to with in two hundred yards all night long when a squad or platoon found themselves surrounded in the middle of no place, so that's why you have a contact powder and HE round. I've seen them as close as two thousand yards and eight miles out. We could literally done away with the illumination rounds as most places had mortar tubes. I can't remember ever shooting illumination more that a thousand yards out. We used WP regularly! Infantry was fond of it of course, so you gotta have that one. Another odd ball was the concrete piercing fuse! Used it one time in fifteen months, but we had to have them. What we needed and begged for was the beehive round! Might not need it in a regimental outfit, but a must for every independent battery.
I came from an area where tracks stayed away from. About 12 to 16 miles past the last known road. Closest infantry was usually seven to ten miles north (they had their own 105's). Every day you yearned for the bee hive round. Still you learned the fine art of direct fire to knife point. Nobody else was coming, and you knew it. I learned to shoot HE with a second on a 565 fuse (WP as well), but trust me that beehive was all we needed. My First Sargent and Sargent Major invited the Colonel to spend some time with us, and as luck would have it; he was begging for that beehive. In the end we hauled all kinds of junk we never used, and found ourselves at the bottom of the food chain. I'll never forgive them!
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 02:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextM110A2???
It looks like a long-barrel M107 to me too. Unless they mounted a 155mm barrel onto an M110 chassis just for the purpose of the test.
that was my same thought. I've punched too many rounds thru the 175 gun to ever want to see that thing again. Most inaccurate SPG ever, but was scary to look at. You could watch the barrel wiggle and shake shooting a zone three HE round. They had a bad record for breech failures, and many a breech went flying past everybody. Never ever stood behind the breech as it will go a hundred feet! Then there was the catastropic barrel failures. Look like a banana peel. Then there was the eighty round barrel life factor. Somebody is somewhat nuts out there!
gary
kinmanb
Joined: March 19, 2013
KitMaker: 52 posts
Armorama: 49 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 - 02:37 PM UTC
Interesting video. Several different platforms/configurations. Clearly a test bed, The gun barrels were unique-may be 155mm but different brakes. No gun bunnies, all remote firing, no powder? They seemed to shoot a lot of rounds for the drone, unless the M107/110 was some sort of spotting round?
I agree with Gino, this may not be the best use of a gun tube, I can see this being the new Copperhead, unique technology, but needs very careful planning to work well.
But Mach 5 out of the tube is still pretty cool and if it can be used effectively without risking other fires priorities ok by me.
I agree with Gino, this may not be the best use of a gun tube, I can see this being the new Copperhead, unique technology, but needs very careful planning to work well.
But Mach 5 out of the tube is still pretty cool and if it can be used effectively without risking other fires priorities ok by me.
Trisaw
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 - 12:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't see the point. Field Artillery (FA) pieces are designed to support ground maneuver as they move forward on the ground.
Air Defense Artillery (ADA) shoots down air threats. They have their own designated systems to do so, such as Avenger, Patriot, and THAAD. These all work well.
As a Field Artilleryman, why do I want to carry and train on air defense weapons. As a maneuver commander, I want my artillery carrying munitions that support my fight, not shooting down air threats that the ADA can deal with.
This has to do with the USMC's breaching of A2/AD, which I find interestingly ironic considering that the USMC has no M109A6/ A7 Paladins or Self-Propelled Howitzers to begin with!
I do see the point in that the USMC wants to depend on the US Army for M1A2 MBTs and heavy IFVs, armor, and artillery, and I believe that is a fatal flaw in Force Design 2030's concept, but I won't get into the details there.
Avengers, Patriots, and THAAD...the former two are solely US Army systems with only the HMMWV Avengers in the USMC inventory. Hopefully, new RWS turrets can add a Stinger pod to USMC JLTVs in the future, but the USMC is very weak in Air Defense and the Stinger is only effective out to around five miles.
Having M109s station on A2/AD islands, able to shoot at ships and incoming cruise missiles is a game-changing force multipler in whatever battle theater the Army deploys too. I am for this artillery round even if it is misplaced because the USMC's Force Design 2030 does away with 155mm artillery, and I never knew that the US Army and USMC operate well jointly together.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 - 04:41 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Interesting video. Several different platforms/configurations. Clearly a test bed, The gun barrels were unique-may be 155mm but different brakes. No gun bunnies, all remote firing, no powder? They seemed to shoot a lot of rounds for the drone, unless the M107/110 was some sort of spotting round?
I agree with Gino, this may not be the best use of a gun tube, I can see this being the new Copperhead, unique technology, but needs very careful planning to work well.
But Mach 5 out of the tube is still pretty cool and if it can be used effectively without risking other fires priorities ok by me.
nothing new! I know for a fact that they shot a 155mm round in the late 1980's or very early 90's. I watched the video supplied by TACOM. They also brought in the 4" thick piece of armor plate, and it looked like it'd been run thru a punch press! The idea was later tried at FT. Bragg in the mid 90's while testing the Crusader platform and some other items with that same bore diameter.
TACOM didn't really like the Crusader, and Marten got the contract and lost it as soon as they got it. Yet TACOM liked the hybrid electric drive out of the Crusader when it was found that the power supply was big enough for a thermo magnetic gun (actually not quite big enough). The drive unit was too big to install in a tank, and there is still interest in it. Ten years after the project went south, you'd see a couple drive units being built every now and then for somebody.
Just to add to this, there is another propellant system that has been tried with the 155 howitzer, and the results were quite satisfactory, but also more in the window the current guns shoot.
What the Army is after if reliability! The two new propellant systems reduce recoil by 75% or more! Heat generated during rapid firing kills the recoil system. The other big issue is the breech. You can pretty much figure on a complete cleaning every 325 rounds. Sounds like a lot of rounds, but fifty years ago that was common every night. The new stuff will go over a thousand rounds (so they think). No primers or firing lock! Current guns are still cracking trunions and carriages, and that will be gone as well. Down range repeatability will be fantastic, as the gun won't move much at all. The down side is barrel life. It'll be pretty short! Probably a 2500 bore life factor. Buy stock in the barrel maker! The tubes on the M109a7 are going south really fast due to heat cracking let alone bore life.
gary
Removed by original poster on 09/10/20 - 14:09:32 (GMT).
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 10, 2020 - 02:08 AM UTC
The rail gun barrel is not a standard artillery tube. There are many factors that preclude their use, but the simplest to explain is the intense heat generated from the projectile as it accelerates. Still, this would make a pretty good diorama using a few kits a lot of us have lying around.
I don't see the point. Field Artillery (FA) pieces are designed to support ground maneuver as they move forward on the ground.
Air Defense Artillery (ADA) shoots down air threats. They have their own designated systems to do so, such as Avenger, Patriot, and THAAD. These all work well.
As a Field Artilleryman, why do I want to carry and train on air defense weapons. As a maneuver commander, I want my artillery carrying munitions that support my fight, not shooting down air threats that the ADA can deal with.
I can't speak as a maneuver commander, but I can speak to my experience as the Fires Officer in Korea for CUWTF (Combined Unconventional Warfare Task Force) which later became CSOCC-K. (Combined Special Operations Component Command-Korea)
Note: These positions are based upon capability, not rank. I said I could spell FIRES, so they gave me the job.
In that position I would love to have had this system at my fingertips, as I did TLAM's, tube and rocket artillery, Air Force fast movers, AC-130 Gunships, and an array of other assets.
I never knew that the US Army and USMC operate well jointly together.
Interesting observation. Special Operations Command Korea, of which I was a member for four years, might want to subsribe to Armorama for guidance. SOCKOR comprised of NSW, (Naval Special Warfare) AFSOC, Army SF, and MARSOC, to name a few. The command rotates among the components. My first two commanders were Army SF generals, the last was an Air Force general.
Again, from my somewhat limited experience (three rotations as the Fires Officer, and three as the NCOIC of the joint US/Korean Special Operations JOC, I'd say everyone plays extremely well together.
Don't forget, for anyone who might not have watched the entire video, this system can engage buildings, force concentrations, weapons systems, drones, aircraft, vehicles, bunkers, enemy missiles and artillery rounds, and not just ADA targets.
Remember also the rounds are smaller and significantly lighter, so MORE can be carried in case any have to be wasted shooting at targets ADA should have been engaging. (can they shot down artillery rounds as well?) Given the threats in the DPRK, (TBM's for example) I'd say this system would be devastating to their offensive capabilities.
I don't see the point. Field Artillery (FA) pieces are designed to support ground maneuver as they move forward on the ground.
Air Defense Artillery (ADA) shoots down air threats. They have their own designated systems to do so, such as Avenger, Patriot, and THAAD. These all work well.
As a Field Artilleryman, why do I want to carry and train on air defense weapons. As a maneuver commander, I want my artillery carrying munitions that support my fight, not shooting down air threats that the ADA can deal with.
I can't speak as a maneuver commander, but I can speak to my experience as the Fires Officer in Korea for CUWTF (Combined Unconventional Warfare Task Force) which later became CSOCC-K. (Combined Special Operations Component Command-Korea)
Note: These positions are based upon capability, not rank. I said I could spell FIRES, so they gave me the job.
In that position I would love to have had this system at my fingertips, as I did TLAM's, tube and rocket artillery, Air Force fast movers, AC-130 Gunships, and an array of other assets.
I never knew that the US Army and USMC operate well jointly together.
Interesting observation. Special Operations Command Korea, of which I was a member for four years, might want to subsribe to Armorama for guidance. SOCKOR comprised of NSW, (Naval Special Warfare) AFSOC, Army SF, and MARSOC, to name a few. The command rotates among the components. My first two commanders were Army SF generals, the last was an Air Force general.
Again, from my somewhat limited experience (three rotations as the Fires Officer, and three as the NCOIC of the joint US/Korean Special Operations JOC, I'd say everyone plays extremely well together.
Don't forget, for anyone who might not have watched the entire video, this system can engage buildings, force concentrations, weapons systems, drones, aircraft, vehicles, bunkers, enemy missiles and artillery rounds, and not just ADA targets.
Remember also the rounds are smaller and significantly lighter, so MORE can be carried in case any have to be wasted shooting at targets ADA should have been engaging. (can they shot down artillery rounds as well?) Given the threats in the DPRK, (TBM's for example) I'd say this system would be devastating to their offensive capabilities.
taylorrl
Joined: January 31, 2019
KitMaker: 50 posts
Armorama: 49 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 10, 2020 - 08:48 AM UTC
All,
A couple of observations and comments:
The "M107" testbed is actually an M110A2 re-tubed with the experimental high velocity 155mm barrel.
The barrel whip is actually the entire weapons system bucking from the recoil. The hull deck is bouncing up and down in sync with the tube. This occurred with the M110A2 firing charge 7 at a low elevations. Crew members were knocked off the gun in the M110A2 battery that I commanded on the direct fire range.
The test fired the joint High Velocity Projectile (HVP) which is an offshoot of the Navy's Railgun project. The projectile is guided and has a range of 50 miles (80km) when fired from the howitzer. When fired from a conventional tube, it achieves Mach 3. Mach 5 is achieved only when fired from a railgun. The HVP is a multipurpose projectile. It can be fired from 155 howitzers, 5" deck guns, the under development MK45 deck gun and the experimental railgun. It is intended to be used against ground targets and ships. The anti-cruise missile capability is a nice bonus. Commanders would no longer have to worry about firing a very limited quantity of million dollar anti-aircraft missiles with a really slow reload time.
The howitzer would not be trying to traverse to keep on the cruise missile target - it only needs to put the projectile within the maneuvering footprint of the guidance system around the target for success.
As an Air Assault Brigade Fire Support Officer I'd have given my left nut for this system. Nearly all of our objectives where beyond the conventional artillery range fan. 80km would have ranged most of our objectives. As the Division G3 Future Plans Fire Support Officer having that range with tube artillery opens a wide range of options for all weather deep strikes.
Rick
A couple of observations and comments:
The "M107" testbed is actually an M110A2 re-tubed with the experimental high velocity 155mm barrel.
The barrel whip is actually the entire weapons system bucking from the recoil. The hull deck is bouncing up and down in sync with the tube. This occurred with the M110A2 firing charge 7 at a low elevations. Crew members were knocked off the gun in the M110A2 battery that I commanded on the direct fire range.
The test fired the joint High Velocity Projectile (HVP) which is an offshoot of the Navy's Railgun project. The projectile is guided and has a range of 50 miles (80km) when fired from the howitzer. When fired from a conventional tube, it achieves Mach 3. Mach 5 is achieved only when fired from a railgun. The HVP is a multipurpose projectile. It can be fired from 155 howitzers, 5" deck guns, the under development MK45 deck gun and the experimental railgun. It is intended to be used against ground targets and ships. The anti-cruise missile capability is a nice bonus. Commanders would no longer have to worry about firing a very limited quantity of million dollar anti-aircraft missiles with a really slow reload time.
The howitzer would not be trying to traverse to keep on the cruise missile target - it only needs to put the projectile within the maneuvering footprint of the guidance system around the target for success.
As an Air Assault Brigade Fire Support Officer I'd have given my left nut for this system. Nearly all of our objectives where beyond the conventional artillery range fan. 80km would have ranged most of our objectives. As the Division G3 Future Plans Fire Support Officer having that range with tube artillery opens a wide range of options for all weather deep strikes.
Rick
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 10, 2020 - 09:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
All,
A couple of observations and comments:
The "M107" testbed is actually an M110A2 re-tubed with the experimental high velocity 155mm barrel.
.....
Rick
Thanks! I couldn't get the looks of that barrel to match the looks of the M107. It isn't an M110 barrel either, oh well ....
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.