Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[OldSolduer]

The statement "collateral damage is not acceptable"
It smacks of "if you make an error you'll be crucified"

Not only that, if the CASW needs to fire indirect it needs a FOO type to direct it....otherwise......collateral damage....which is not acceptable.

 

[Illegio]

Is it just me or does the CEP for the CASW seem a bit small? Considering the 40mm round has what, a 1m lethal radius, that diagram is suggesting that the CEP is only 2 square meters at 2000m? Even looking at the GMG stats, it says it is effective to "point targets" at 1500m. Sounds a bit fishy.

 

[KevinB]

Its easy to make tables when stuff is not fielded...

 

[GnyHwy]

Those pics are completely bogus for a number of reasons. 

1.  The CASW could not be accurate to 2 metres. Not even on a SF kit.  That seems almost as accurate as sniper rifle. Busted.
2.  It depicts the 155m error as circular and the 60mm as oval.  They are the opposite of that.  Further, a 777 @ 20 km with a 5 m radius. Not even close.  It would be more like 180 x 90 at that range.  Apologize for the estimate but, I don't have my firing tables on me .

Not sure where these sesame street diagrams come from.  Not even a manufacturer trying to sell his stuff would dare  advertise this.

 

[GnyHwy]

EDIT: Those 777 stats I stated would be with conventional ammo.  Excalibur could do the 5m raduis.

 

[OldSolduer]

Those pics are completely bogus for a number of reasons. 

1.  The CASW could not be accurate to 2 metres. Not even on a SF kit.  That seems almost as accurate as sniper rifle. Busted.
2.  It depicts the 155m error as circular and the 60mm as oval.  They are the opposite of that.  Further, a 777 @ 20 km with a 5 m radius. Not even close.  It would be more like 180 x 90 at that range.  Apologize for the estimate but, I don't have my firing tables on me .

Not sure where these sesame street diagrams come from.  Not even a manufacturer trying to sell his stuff would dare  advertise this.

Old mortarman here....beaton zone of the 81 was long and narrow.....so why is this weapon so different?

 

[GnyHwy]

I take your words as experienced but, the mortar would not be a narrow and long as a gun.  The higher the elevation the more circular it would be.  At lower elevations, closer to 800 mils (max range) of the mortar you are absolutely correct. Long a narrow.

 

[OldSolduer]

I take your words as experienced but, the mortar would not be a narrow and long as a gun.  The higher the elevation the more circular it would be.  At lower elevations, closer to 800 mils (max range) of the mortar you are absolutely correct. Long a narrow.

even at a high elevation the 81's BZ was long and narrow. I'd have to look but I am sure it was about 200m long (depending on range from mortar to tgt) and elevation. Width....I am not sure on. TViking might know.

 

[GnyHwy]

I can check my firing tables at work tomorrow.  I just know when we calculate error for guns we calculate error for range and deflection.  Range error is usually, on average about 8x the error in deflection (error in deflection is almost neglible unless you shoot really far).  For mortars we just calculate CEP which I believe all the firing table provide but, I will double check. 

 

[OldSolduer]

Gny, I really wish the infantry could get those 81s back@!

 

[GnyHwy]

Air mobile.

 

[GnyHwy]

Further to those pics.  It certainly seems fishy.  The person delivering the presentation was likely lobbying the CASW.  It looks like the best case stats for the CASW vs the actual for the 60.  I do believe that if the CASW is matched against the 60 for accuracy it would be a no conteset but, the CASW ain't that accurate.  My best guess would be 1 in 10 shots would be within 2m but, with a 3-5 rds burst,  the majority of rounds would be anywhere from 5- 20m away, similar to a tight MG grouping.

 

[ArmyRick]

Those diagrams (as fishy as they are) do not address a key issue we have discussed here. ITS WEIGHT! Its either vehicle mounted or in a static position (FOB or OP). No way guys with current full kit, would be humping that. I have been on ex with yanks and I have yet to see them humping a MK19. They jam them on Hummers, Amtracks and the likes.

I suggest, we stick these things on the LAVIII ISC versions with no 25mm. I would also reccomend maybe we stick these on our MRAPs.

Anybody else? Thoughts?

Jim, your absolutely right, GIVE us back our 81mm Mortars (or buy us Strykers with 120mm mortars ;-)

 

[dapaterson]

I'd suggest a simple evaluation:

Two four-man crews, one from the CASW project, the other from any one of the Bns.

Each has to carry their system (together with their full personal kit) for 5km, then engage a target at 2500m.

First round on target wins the evaluation.



Anyone?  Bueller?

 

[vonGarvin]

If those project members wish to pulll themselves away from the powerpoint and lug the beast around, then I'll listen to them.  Until then, they can shut the f**** up, because unlike their propaganda states, the infantry is stilll wondering how to carry the thing, let alone stare at powerpoints.  Instead, I'll just show those staffers a photo of the supposedely obsolete weapon:

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'd love to have it available on a vehicle mount, but I can't see how the CASW could have been deployed in any of these (very tense) situations:

I love these guys.... ‘Got it in there baby’… extra gum for that Marine on the 60. Obviously a Pl or Coy wpns det in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRcINiPBw3c&feature=related

Nicely done… 51mm MOR at 2.02 and after
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoDT1NGjTR8&feature=related

Same again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNSdoeVOFiQ&feature=related

 

[OldSolduer]

I made the point on the weight of this beast some time ago. I think the weight of the system alone prohibits "Man packing" it, never mind all the ammo the beast needs.
As for the propaganda that GAP posted...its just that....propaganda.

 

[George Wallace]

...........(or buy us Strykers with 120mm mortars ;-)

As an Armour guy, even I see the potential and sense in this.  I would like to see these in Armour units, as well as Infantry, to provide support.  Tanks are not that effective at firing illumination or indirect fire.  Recce has even less capabilities.

 

[OldSolduer]

The thing with mortars it comes with a pretty high training bill. Its not a weapon anyone can use. Numpties are not welcome in the Mortar World. TViking knows this as well.

You need to train Fire Controllers, Control Post Operators, Group Commanders, Line Cpls and the crews that man the weapons as well.

Its costly, but worthwhile.

 

[Michael OLeary]

As an Armour guy, even I see the potential and sense in this.  I would like to see these in Armour units, as well as Infantry, to provide support.  Tanks are not that effective at firing illumination or indirect fire.  Recce has even less capabilities.

Unless we are planning to go into the realm of improved munitions, then lobbying for the 120 over the 81 is a very different argument, and probably as big a difference as 60 vs. CASW.  The principal purpose of the 81 mortar was suppression. Suppression is best effected by hitting the target hard in the first few seconds of a fire mission, then maintaining a decent sustained rate of fire. Soldiers in the target area don't duck lower or stay down longer in direct proportion to the diameter of the mortar round, so heavier mortars don't necessarily scale into more effective application of fire.  The 81 can be drop fired much more efficiently than the 120, and an automatic 120 for burst capability is a different animal again with all its own problems. Sustained fire with the 81 can be achieved with approximately one-fourth the logistic penalty of providing the same number of rounds for a 120, and the coverage of 4 x 81 is about the same as 3 x 120 for about the same cost in troops and vehicles to deploy. (When we looked at a 120 program we were planning to replace 8 x 81 with 6 x 120.) And even replacing 4 with 3 results in a logistic cost of about three times the weight/bulk for equivalent HE suppressive fire effect.

The ICM argument is also a non-starter for the same reasons the Guns don't carry every possible ICM round, it takes too much capability away from core mission capabilities with HE/smoke/illum when you aren't planning specialized applications of fire.  So, if we want to get into the merits of bringing back the 81 or alternatives, then there's already a thread for that. This one can stay on the 60 vs CASW argument, along with exploring how the situated estimate is using the "doctrinal" 60 to make its case and refusing to compare new weapons capabilities.