Fire Support downsizing continues - blame precision

[Kirkhill]

First the USAF/USMC/RAF start steaming the HE out of bombs and filling them with concrete to reduce collateral damage

Then the 250 lb Small Diameter Bomb enters the scene

Meanwhile the Hellfire becomes weapon of choice for UAVs with its 20 lb warhead

Now the Hellfire is being complemented by something called Viper Strike with a 4 lb warhead.  It is a variant of the Brilliant Attack submunitions that was to be deployed from MLRS missiles.  Now it is  man in the loop stand-off munition launched from AC-130 Specter.  It needs its target to be lased, either from the ground or the air.

Same rational precision means more targets hit.  Less need for overkill to ensure that near-misses get the job done. 

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/viper-strike.htm

 

[Infanteer]

Meanwhile Taliban take to the caves and have to be rooted out by foot soldiers.

 

[CBH99]

What do you propose we do about that in regards to warhead size, Infanteer?

 

[Infanteer]

I'm a Biddle fan - don't worry so much about warheads and get more boots on the ground.   Warheads are the realm of the Airpower crowd who are by nature an extention of the Artillery crowd of WWI who thought you could pound the trenchline to dust and walk in.   90 years later and the concept still hasn't proved to be true.

A 4-pound warhead is no better than a 2000-pound JDAM when it lands on some wedding party.  As the thread title says - blame precision.

 

[CBH99]

Fair enough, point made.

 

[3rd Horseman]

What ever happened to the adage "Never send a man were a warhead can go first" That does not mean send a war head only it means just first. The battle effectiveness of artillery and air power has improved astronomically since the original concepts of WW1. The concepts of precision in WW1 are the for fathers of all we do now dont knock them it was like the wheel being invented in the difference it made to the Inf. Vimy was perfect example.

 

[Kirkhill]

With some of the unarmed micro uavs being able to fly into the caves I don't think it will be long before somebody marries something like the Raven UAV with the 25mm programmable round from XM25 system and flies rounds in targeted support.

No attack with artillery, or air support, has ever been the cake-walk that the more optimistic supporters (many of the infantry) have hoped.  On the other hand, as 3rd Horseman suggests, very few if any attacks have gone in without successful fire support.  The difference today is that arty/air is more likely to achieve as much as they can with less effort. For example at Vimy one soldier stated that from his vantage point there were 51 pill boxes in his field of view (I forget the source, probably Dancocks).  The arty spent days trying to reduce targets like that and eventually had to send over a massive curtain to neutralize and isolate them long enough for individual soldiers with 1lb hand grenades to take them out.  Now 51 white concrete boxes on a muddy brown/green field would be dealt with pretty expeditiously. (And in a considerably more environmentally friendly fashion - fewer nasty holes in the ground with UXO in the bottom).

M72-LAW, CG-84, Javelin, Viper Strike, TOW-2, Hellfire, 155-CCF, Excalibur, G-MRLS, SDB, ATACMS-P, JDAMS.... on the other hand there will always be enough angry survivors that Infanteer's not going to run out of employment any time soon.

 

[Infanteer]

What ever happened to the adage "Never send a man were a warhead can go first" That does not mean send a war head only it means just first.

Your absolutely right - however, the "Air Power" crowd doesn't seem to think we even need to do this.  The Desert Storm and Kosovo air offensives seem to be rightfully regarded as largely ineffectual - both needed serious ground power to achieve the aims.  The Afghanistan model of SOF soldiers guiding PGM's in has been shot down by Biddle.  Fix and strike - you need 'em both (who cares which group is doing the fixing and which is doing the striking).  Fighting power is made at the sharp end by the seamless integration of combined arms capability - it's been that way since Vimy.

Now 51 white concrete boxes on a muddy brown/green field would be dealt with pretty expeditiously. (And in a considerably more environmentally friendly fashion - fewer nasty holes in the ground with UXO in the bottom).

They found an Al Qa'ida command bunker in Tora Bora with 5 2000lb JDAM craters around it and yet Infantry had to still go in and root the bad guys out.  I don't see concrete boxes being replaced anytime soon - microterrain, and not technology, is still the largest factor on the battlefield.

 

[Kirkhill]

Give credit where it is due Infanteer...they're getting closer

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Kenneth-Edwards-LOCAAS1sep96.htm

Lockheed Martin Successfully Flight Tests Low-Cost Autonomous Attack System 
 
 
(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Nov. 3, 2005)
 
 
ORLANDO, FL. --- Lockheed Martin conducted a successful operator-in-the-loop flight test of the LOCAAS, a low-cost autonomous attack system at Eglin AFB, FL on Oct. 21. LOCAAS is an autonomous, wide-area search miniature munition that is equipped with a LADAR seeker. 

"This test demonstrated the capability of LOCAAS to integrate automatic combat identification, global data links, operator-in-the-loop involvement, and successful redirect of the weapon," said Randy Bigum, vice president of Strike Weapons at Lockheed Martin. 

The LOCAAS flight test vehicle was launched from a King Air 200 and flew more than 40 nautical miles in approximately 15 minutes. During the flight, LOCAAS was powered by the Technical Directions Incorporated J45G turbojet engine as it used its laser radar (LADAR) seeker to search, identify and report on targets in a preplanned mission search area. 

While flying the planned mission, the operator-in-the-loop redirected the test vehicle to the location of a moving target elsewhere on the range. Once redirected, the test vehicle altered its predefined flight path to an optimal approach to the moving target as the new primary target of interest. 

The Globalstar SATCOM system was used to link the LOCAAS test vehicle and the operator-in-the-loop with a detailed simulation of the Network Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) system developed by L3 Communications. NCCT fused track and identification information from simulated Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) platform sensors to provide the approximate location of the moving, time-sensitive target. 

The test vehicle was also linked via data link to the Cooperative Attack Munitions Real-time Assessment (CAMRA) testbed, which simulated three "virtual" munitions cooperatively searching in flight paths adjacent to the test vehicle. Once cued by the operator-in-the-loop, the virtual munitions performed coordinated attack operations in concert with the flight test vehicle using real-time information received across the data link. 

The link to NCCT allowed the flight test vehicle to act as a non-traditional ISR sensor transmitting detected target vehicle identification, location, time, and weapon status information for use by other systems and operators. 

An Air Force flight-rated operator, serving as the operator-in-the-loop, retargeted the LOCAAS flight test vehicle to "attack" the NCCT-tracked moving vehicle. During the test vehicle's flight, the operator monitored real-time weapon state information, as well as, the near-real time location updates of detected targets provided by NCCT. The operator interface utilized a modified version of the Air Force's Portable Flight Planning System (PFPS) FalconView map overlay application. The FalconView application was executed on a ruggedized laptop computer and enabled the operator to relay the relevant target track information, as well as break-off and/or abort commands to the LOCAAS flight test vehicle. 

The Air Force Research Laboratory, Munitions Directorate sponsored the flight test which was the culmination of five successful flights including one with a live warhead. 


Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 135,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2004 sales of $35.5 billion. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34


PS Infanteer - 

JDAM with GPS - 13 m CEP (40 ft)
JDAM without GPS, using Inertial Navigation System (INS) only - 30 m CEP (100 ft) -  GPS jammers are known to be commercially available from foreign governments (employed in Iraq)
JDAM with GPS and/or INS AND with DAMASK seeker - 3 m CEP (10 ft) - DAMASK compares picture of target to target - as long as it can get a clear look at the target it will likely hit it - INS can get it close enough and unlike GPS can't be jammed.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Dec/Planned_JDAM.htm
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/s1/news/2000/DAMASK2.htm

As I said they're  getting closer - and they're doing it from farther away, with smaller bombs, launched in greater numbers from individual platforms, for less cost.

 

[Kirkhill]

Raytheon Successfully Demonstrates Multi-Weapon Netted Battlefield
 
 
(Source: Raytheon Company; issued Nov. 7, 2005)
 
 
TUCSON, Ariz. --- Raytheon Company has successfully demonstrated how battle systems -- showing future force capabilities using current and near term systems -- can work together to benefit the warfighter. 

The Strike Netted Effects Demonstration Nov. 3 was viewed by senior U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy officials at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Ariz. The demonstration proved that precision engagements in the net-enabled battle space of the future are available to the warfighter today. 

The Tucson demo illustrated the increased capabilities available by linking three different strike weapons -- Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile, Joint Standoff Weapon and Maverick Lock On After Launch (LOAL) -- with the AFATDS (the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System), command and control (C2) system and the Integrated Real-time Tactical Targeting System. 

The event successfully demonstrated the use of existing or in-development capabilities to provide new mission solutions for the warfighter. 

Raytheon's Mission System Integration allowed for time sensitive targets to be positively identified and designated by troops forward in the battle space, then engaged by precision weapons launched from various platforms. 

In the netted battlefield, Raytheon provides both the weapon-targeting pairing and the critical link to connect the warfighters' calls for fire to the appropriate weapon systems for a timely and effective response. 

Raytheon demonstrated the capability to integrate and exercise the entire effects chain from sensors (finding the target) to C2 (deciding to attack the target) to final effects (attack and destruction of the target), including results verification using battle damage assessment images. 

"This demonstration really shows the 'the art of the possible' in meeting tomorrow's warfighter needs with today's systems," said Harry Schulte, vice president, Strike weapon systems team. "This provides our customers with a view of how they can achieve their future battlefield needs today using current assets with minimal added investment." 


Raytheon Company, with 2004 sales of $20.2 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16743278.1131606546.Q3LyEsOa9dUAADz4jJI&modele=jdc_34

 

[Kirkhill]

35 out of 35 250 lb bombs - all within 4 ft of the aim point and with a 60 nautical mile range.  Moving on to operational testing.  Unit cost roughly comparable to Javelin, TOW or Hellfire ATGMs or Excalibur 155 PGM (at something between 60 and 90,000 USD each while the others range from 60,000 for an old model Hellfire to 180,000 for a current model TOW)


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16746179.1131732850.Q3TfcsOa9dUAAGglTnk&modele=jdc_34

Boeing Small Diameter Bomb Enters Operational Testing 
 
 
(Source: Boeing Co.; issued Nov. 10, 2005)
 
 
ST. LOUIS --- Two months after development flight testing ended, the U.S. Air Force recently began operational testing of the Boeing Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) with a series of tests at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. 

"While we've done our best to conduct development testing under realistic conditions, the operational tests are flown in scenarios that are as realistic as possible by crews with combat experience," said U.S. Air Force Col. Richard Justice, SDB program manager. "The weapons will be handled by 'blue suiters' from start to finish, just like they were in a combat zone." 

Boeing completed SDB development flight testing on schedule and on cost Sept. 25. During the highly successful development program, 35 SDBs were successfully tested against a variety of fixed targets, each hitting within an average of four feet from its surveyed target aimpoint. Operational testing is expected to last approximately eight months. 

SDB entered low-rate initial production last April and on Oct. 31 received a Lot 2 contract from the Air Force for $38.3 million to produce 567 additional SDBs and 140 carriages. 

The all-weather SDB weapon system includes a carriage with four bombs and is compatible with every U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft. It has a standoff range of 60 nautical miles. At 71 inches long, this 250-pound class weapon quadruples the number of weapons each aircraft can carry. The system will first be deployed on the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle in 2006. 


A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $30.5 billion business. It provides network-centric system solutions to its global military, government, and commercial customers. It is a leading provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems; the world's largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world's largest satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense; NASA's largest contractor; and a global leader in sustainment solutions and launch services. 

-ends-

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Hmmm - all this talk of CEP and warhead size - perhaps we are missing the point?  Not to parrot the sexy word of the day, but surely the key determinant for any weapon, be it a warhead or "boots on the ground", must be a firm understanding of the effect that one is trying to acheive?  Once the effect is determined, then you can progress to discussions of the means....

Dave

 

[Infanteer]

Ooooohhhh - EBO. 

 

[3rd Horseman]

The smaller the bomb the easier it is to fly, the easier it is to fly the more accurate it is, the more acurate and smaller it is the less collateral damage you get without lossing the target kill capability.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ooooohhhh - EBO.    

yeah yeah, I know...

 

[Kirkhill]

I thought the primary effect expected of the artillery was to make obstacles in the way of "boots on the ground" disappear?

If the obstacle disappears temporarily behind a curtain of HE it's neutralized.  If it is permanently removed it is eliminated.  Precision surely means less need for neutralizing which takes up a lot of ammunition and a heavy logistics load?  It also means fewer rounds and smaller rounds to eliminate the obstacle.

From here it also looks like the effect is the warhead and not the missile.

M67/(C3?) Hand grenade, M72, CG-84 and 60mm mortar all deliver "warheads" of something between 1 to 5 lbs to the target.

Spike/Javelin/Hellfire/Netfires-PAM have warheads in the 20 lb range (Eryx is about 10 lb or roughly the same as an 81 mm mortar round and TOW about 30 lb or about the same weight as a 120 mm mortar round)

105mm arty seems to be around 18 kg or about 40 lb while 155 mm arty fires a bullet or warhead of about 100 lb (47 kg)

The next group up seems to be around the 100 kg warhead (200 - 250 lb or so) including 250 lb bombs "naked" or with add on kits like Paveway, JDAM, DAMASK or Diamond Back;  the Small Diameter Bomb and the old reliable Maverick as well as the GMRLS ground launched missile with the 90 kg unitary warhead.

At 200 kg or about 500 lb we have the same kits as are available for the 250s (except that the 250 is only theoretical where they are in service on the 500s) along with the Harpoon and its SLAM-ER variant and the ATACMS unitary launched from the same launcher as the GMRLS.

At 400 to 500 kg or 1000 lb there are the same options for bombs as are available for the 250s and 500s  as well as systems such as the Joint Stand Off Weapon, the Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile, the Storm Shadow, the KEPD-350 and even the Tomahawk

At 2000 lb there are the same bomb kits as previously noted for the smaller rounds and the Air Launched Cruise Missile - Conventional with its 1450 kg warhead (actually about 3000 lb)

Theoretically this progression could continue upwards through to Conventionally armed ICBMs, both sub launched and silo launched.

All the bombs and missiles are capable of being fitted with similar targeting devices and thus achieving comparable accuracies.  The guns seem to be little bit further behind the accuracy curve because of the high g's experienced on launch and the need to spin the round to stabilize it in flight but they are catching up with Course Correcting Fuzes and rounds like Excalibur.

The questions then become what kind of platforms can you carry with you to the fight,  how far away are they from the target, what is the response time and who has release authority.

I accept that even with all the gee-whiz stuff many if not most rounds can miss their target but before you might have had to bank on one Hornet with a 2000 lb bomb on board hitting (ie getting close enough to damage) the target.  Now that same aircraft can carry 8 SDBs each one of which has a chance at landing close enough, and carrying a sufficient warhead, that it can achieve the same effect as that 2000 pounder ( if it hit its target).

Because of that increase in the effectiveness of a 250 lb warhead (it can land close enough) then it seems also possible to consider swapping out some of the Air Support tasks and transferring them to GMRLS launchers.  One truck with a 6 pack of GMRLS missiles with ranges of 70 to 100 km can carry almost as much "effect" as a Hornet with 8 SDBs which in turn are approaching the "effectiveness" of dumb 2000 pounders.  It is also faster to reload an MRLS launcher than a Hornet.  And one might suggest it would be easier to deploy, cheaper to purchase and support, more likely to be available in all weathers 24/7 and faster off the mark to respond to a fire mission.

I agree entirely that effect is the best method of evaluating systems.  Though if the primary effect of the artillery (naval, terrestrial, aerial or strategic) is to remove obstacles this is usually accomplished by creating large holes where they used to be.  The size of the hole is directly related to the weight of the warhead.  The size of the hole necessary is directly related to how close the warhead lands to the target.  The closer the round lands, the smaller the hole necessary, the smaller the charge, the smaller the missile and the more that can be carried.  At the same time rounds landing closer means fewer rounds required - fewer trucks, helicopters, aircraft and ships to carry them and fewer drivers and loaders.

From my stand-point, at least as far as arty support is concerned, effect is synonymous with throw-weight (warhead) and accuracy (CEP).

(Beware - civvie flapping his gums again.... some facts may have been altered for purposes of discussion and due to sheer incompetence) ^-^

 

[Infanteer]

Comparing a soldier closing with rifle and grenade to a bomb dropped from a jet misses the point that PPCLI Guy brought up before (and I poked fun at) - namely the effect.  One must consider the effect in both the physical and the mental planes of conflict, which looking at payloads and distances can't do.

This is what my earlier example of the Al Qa'ida bunker with 5 JDAM craters around it alludes to - a grunt closing with the enemy is not merely a way to deliver a small bomb, it is psychological dislocation of the enemy.  An infantry soldier shooting-and-moving to the flank of the enemy starts him worrying about his security; an infantry soldier closing in on the assault with copious amounts of supporting fire (remember, at low level tactics, firepower enables maneuver) gets the bad guy shitting his pants because he's about to be killed.  A bomb from a plane or an artillery gun, whether it be 20lbs or 2000lbs provides a psychlogical shock of limited intensity and duration.  This is why soldiers in the Trenches could endure all the weight on the Western Front dumped on their heads by artillery and still manage to man their positions when the attack came.  A bomb from a plane or a gun can have devastating physical effects if it catches the enemy off-guard, but as Biddle's paper on Afghanistan shows, a smart enemy will soon learn how to not get caught off-guard.

This is why, in the end, all the precision in the world doesn't improve the ability of stand-off firepower to win wars.  The adage that "Firepower Destroys and Infantry Occupies" is wrong, and its modern day techno-modification that "Precision Firepower Destroys even better" is equally wrong.  In the end, it is the psychological dislocation of the attack (this is right in our doctrine) that wins the day; this is why, after 5 2000lb JDAM's, the US Infantry still had to root their Al Qa'ida enemies out of that bunker....

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not suggesting that precision will "win wars" on its own.  I am suggesting that precision will reduce the logistical burden necessary to achieve the physical effect of eliminating obstacles.

With respect to WWI -  all the weight of fire in the world (at the time), for extended durations, making loud bangs and shaking the earth did not stop German machine gunners from clambering out of their holes to man their positions and inflict significant harm on advancing Canadian troops.

By contrast, I suggest that IF (stressed and stipulated - I will concede that this may not be the state of the art currently) IF the 51 bunkers previously alluded to were to be seen disappearing one after the other,  all bunkers targeted, no rounds wasted, no sense of "luck" in the equation, that this might encourage the rest of the inhabitants of the other bunkers to vacate the premises.  I believe that Gulf War I demonstrated something of that effect as Iraqis surrendered at the first opportunity because they felt that it was only a matter of time before their dug in tank or company disappeared next.

As you well know - I am strongly of the belief that technology only serves the "boots on the ground".  It doesn't win wars on its own. 

However the more effective the technology is the less need there is to carry lots of it around with you.  And with a good delivery system you need to carry still less.

This thread was not started to suggest that arty will be replacing infantry anytime soon. 

It does support the observations and conclusions of the Royal Artillery that in an environment where weight of fire is not called for,  where bullets travel farther from their launcher and land closer to their targets there is less need for bullets, less need for launchers and increasingly, less need for the same number of gunners to man the guns and mortars.  There have been automatic firing systems for mortars, rockets and missiles for at least the last 20 years.  Laying and firing can be automated - the only manpower necessary is to refill the magazine, check the batteries and recalibrate the sights.

Similarly, in the Air Force, there is a decreasing need for pilots to go screaming over the deck at 50 m to try and place one bomb on target.  The Brits gave that up in Gulf War I.  The Yanks had given it up sometime previous.  Now with the stand-off and precision targeting more missions can be flown at high altitude well out of the range of air defence systems.  With more rounds per aircraft and fewer rounds per kill it ultimately means less need for pilots and aircraft.  Together with increasing use of UAVs and the increased capability that more precise targeting gives to smaller warheads which can be ground launched this reduces the need for aircrew and aircraft.

One final point about your firing and manoeuvering comment.  Do copious amounts of ammunition flying overhead really get the enemy "******** his pants" if they aren't hitting the target?  Surely by that standard American troops fighting in the Zabul engagements mentioned previously should all have run away?  By contrast, it has been suggested that one of the contributing factors to the Argentinians surrendering to 2 Para at Goose Green, even though they outnumbered the Paras, was the fact that a high percentage of them were being hit between the eyes as they stuck their heads up.  The ratios of attackers to defenders and dead to wounded, coupled with the high number of head shots on that engagement briefly had the Paras under review for their conduct because they were so far removed from the norm.

It doesn't seem to be the amount of noise that makes people decide not to fight so much as the imminent and inevitable prospect of death.  Which is more frightening?  Lots of noise or watching your mates disappear one at a time knowing that you are next in line?

 

[3rd Horseman]

As a fire support coord guy I view the fire support weapons at my disposal as arrows in the quiver, I want as many different arrows as possible to suit each attack and target, thus weapons are selected and used to accomplish specific ends. Through weight is important if the effect is keep there head down and cause disruption so inf can maneuver close to stick in bayonet more neutralize than kill. When used for kill in non built up areas great even better but with todays urban fight selection of warhead is vital to keep the civi in Apt 12B alive while you take out bunker in apt 1A. The choice of 250 sdb is a move toward precision which is a kill capacity and is normally done to reduce casualties it is not intended to reduce ot eliminate another weapon specifically. The 250 came about when the 2000 pavways were too big and killing too many civilians and causing too much infrastructure damage (and all inf said about cost and log train). As such the down scale of bomb found an easier capability to fly (maneuver the bomb) than with the big stuff. For example a 2000 ib could be maneuvered about 100 meters off original aim point halfway through its trajectory. With a 1000 you get a bit more and as you go down you get better maneuver. Precision is not identical with weapons they vary based on the percent error and ability to maneuver the error out. Thus with a 250 lb bomb with an error of 350 meters you can fly it back onto target or change targets mid drop to acquire another or as was the case on occasion in Bosnia to steer away the bomb when friendly or non combatant was found at target site after release.

So to sum up precision is about choice of usage based on target and nature of the attack.

In artillery and fire support size does not matter, effects do, 105 has little kill capability compared to a 155 yet a 172 has less than a 155. In mortars 120 motar has higher kill capabilty for weight than a 155. Delivery is a way to attack it changes with the mission. Choice is whats important.