Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more

[Bird_Gunner45]

Whereas, being more cynical, I focused on "ditching the mortar concept ....", as in "we take the mortars, then decide that we don't want to do that anymore so we'll just leave them in the QM."

;D

For an army our size, mortars are almost a BETTER option than higher level assets like HIMARS.  particularly if they're infantry borne... they can be indirect fire or infantry depending on the operation (Peace support vs warfare).

That would also allow the remaining arty PYs to focus on firing the guns (whatever calibre they are) or whatever it is 4 AD/GSR/holding unit is doing at that time.  Without a new radar and with a leased UAV I dont see how ANYONE can justify keeping it together when the infantry are losing PYs, armour are losing PYs, etc

 

[Ralph]

Has anyone used the 81mm subcal? Given the amount and price of the actual rounds, we haven't bothered trying to try it...I assume it has the same limfacs as the 14.5mm?

 

[Ostrozac]

I've used the 81mm subcal -- I can't speak to its effectiveness in training Mortar Fire Controllers, as I never was an MFC, but I remember it as a fairly effective way to train crew drills prior to transitioning to live fire. And the template for using it was pretty small -- so we could use it almost anywhere.

Was it greatly effected by the wind? I guess, but high wind is a major issue with live 81mm ammo too.

I never saw the figures for cost -- so I can't speak to what the savings would be comparing 81mm subcal with live HE.

 

[daftandbarmy]

For an army our size, mortars are almost a BETTER option than higher level assets like HIMARS.  particularly if they're infantry borne... they can be indirect fire or infantry depending on the operation (Peace support vs warfare).

That would also allow the remaining arty PYs to focus on firing the guns (whatever calibre they are) or whatever it is 4 AD/GSR/holding unit is doing at that time.  Without a new radar and with a leased UAV I dont see how ANYONE can justify keeping it together when the infantry are losing PYs, armour are losing PYs, etc

My God man, think of the Generals! You can't be a real one unless you command artillery. Sheesh :

P.S.  :sarcasm:

 

[vonGarvin]

I've used the 81mm subcal -- I can't speak to its effectiveness in training Mortar Fire Controllers, as I never was an MFC, but I remember it as a fairly effective way to train crew drills prior to transitioning to live fire. And the template for using it was pretty small -- so we could use it almost anywhere.

Was it greatly effected by the wind? I guess, but high wind is a major issue with live 81mm ammo too.

I never saw the figures for cost -- so I can't speak to what the savings would be comparing 81mm subcal with live HE.

Has anyone used the 81mm subcal? Given the amount and price of the actual rounds, we haven't bothered trying to try it...I assume it has the same limfacs as the 14.5mm?

I have as well.  It serves a purpose for crew drills; however, there are more cost-efficient methods nowadays in the SAT for both crew drills and MFC stuff.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

My God man, think of the Generals! You can't be a real one unless you command artillery. Sheesh :

P.S.  :sarcasm:

It'd be like commanding a division that didn't have any brigades... that's crazy..... oh, wait, we do that

 

[Kirkhill]

An alternate means of supplying 81mm mortar support:

The testing consisted of three separate engagements using a Tiger Shark UAV launching an 81mm mortar equipped with General Dynamics' Roll Control Fixed Canard control system and an ARDEC-developed fuzing solution. All three mortars were launched from a UAV at altitudes of approximately 7,000 ft and guided to within seven meters of a GPS-identified target grid.

"This effort demonstrated a low-cost, tactical version of a GPS strike weapon for UAV platforms," said Mark Schneider, general manager of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems' Seattle operations. "Together with ARDEC, we have demonstrated a weapon in the 10-pound class for tactical UAVs that can be used to quickly engage and defeat targets. Advancements in GPS targeting and data-link technology provide a built-in growth path for this demonstrated technology."

"The Air Drop Mortar (ADM) program with General Dynamics provided a platform to successfully demonstrate and mature subsystems including communication links, munition deployment, guidance and control and fuzing," said Tony Sebasto, senior associate for Munitions at ARDEC. "The utilization of existing mortar production components, along with demonstrated guidance and control and fuzing, gives the U.S. warfighter an option for a very affordable and very capable precision strike weapon."

Defense-Aerospace Link

It seems to be in concert with the RCA owning the 81mm Mors and also the SUAV capabilities.

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting bit of historical trivia WRT mortar bombs:

Near the end of the Second World War, the Germans experimented with lots of weapons concepts in a desperate attempt to turn the tide. In the 81mm category was re-purposing mortar bombs as artillery using the so called "High Low pressure gun", eventually fielded as the PAW-600. The weapon used a conventional shell casing with a perforated plate over the opening, and attached the mortar bomb to the plate via a shear pin. As gasses bled out of the shell casing after firing, the pressure broke the pin and the bomb accelerated out the barrel, leaving very little recoil or other signature. The M-203 uses a very modified version of the High Low pressure principle to launch the 40mm grenade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600

For attacking ground targets from the air, the Luftwaffe experimented with recoilless cannon mounted in the wings or fuselage of the airplane, pointed down and triggered by the magnetic signature of the tank as they overflew it. This was not a great success (pilots needing to take "nape of the Earth" to a whole new dimension), and fortunately for them, the war ended without further development.

Using mortar bombs as real bombs is something that goes back to WWI, no silk scarves this time, though.

 

[GK .Dundas]

As I recall during the development of the OV 10 Bronco the original concept had the aircraft dropping 81 MM and 4.2 inch mortar rounds.

 

[Michael OLeary]

a Tiger Shark UAV launching an 81mm mortar equipped with General Dynamics' Roll Control Fixed Canard control system and an ARDEC-developed fuzing solution.

Completing changing the delivery system for a mortar bomb payload isn't providing "alternate means of supplying 81mm mortar support." They invented a $200K method of delivering a $1K mortar bomb. The fact that they used an 81 mm mortar bomb as the payload doesn't make the delivery system a mortar.

That would be like putting a 500-pound bomb on a truck, driving it to the target, and calling it a new means of air support.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed entirely Michael.

But in a world where we spend 3 MCAD to push a 25mm M242 Bushmaster and a C6 forward in an armoured box it seemed to me it might make sense to someone to replace a 5000 CAD tube that can deliver 1000 CAD bombs at the rate of 15,000 CAD/minute indefinitely with a 500 KCAD launcher that can deliver bombs at the rate of 4000 CAD per sortie when the weather permits.

I should have included this notice in my previous post.  ;D

:sarcasm:

Cheers,

 

[daftandbarmy]

Completing changing the delivery system for a mortar bomb payload isn't providing "alternate means of supplying 81mm mortar support." They invented a $200K method of delivering a $1K mortar bomb. The fact that they used an 81 mm mortar bomb as the payload doesn't make the delivery system a mortar.

That would be like putting a 500-pound bomb on a truck, driving it to the target, and calling it a new means of air support.

Luckily that's not neccessary as we've got Little David in our arsenal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_David

 

[Kirkhill]

PS.

Further to my last.  I apologize for the run-on sentence.

It appears that in my haste I lost track of the comma and period keys on my keyboard  :-[ :-[

 

[rampage800]

But in a world where we spend 3 MCAD to push a 25mm M242 Bushmaster and a C6 forward in an armoured box it seemed to me it might make sense to someone to replace a 5000 CAD tube that can deliver 1000 CAD bombs at the rate of 15,000 CAD/minute indefinitely with a 500 KCAD launcher that can deliver bombs at the rate of 4000 CAD per sortie when the weather permits.

Not sure I'm following your post K but if your throwing around numbers lets not forget that now the capability will exist to drop a $1000 81mm projectile whereas before they needed to use $70k AGM-114, probably going to make up some cost savings (thats not to say that the Hellfire is going out of service) and I'd think they'll be testing these off the MQ-9s and RQ-4s very shortly thus giving them an 'all weather" capability. Not an alternate means of mortar support as was pointed out but an alternate use for an already established weapon IMO.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rampage:

You make your point more clearly than I did mine.

As noted above - I apologize.

You're correct.  By being able to load up Reapers and Predators with 81mm bombs instead of Hellfires a fair amount of money will be saved.

Having said that:

My general, and obscure, point was that we seem willing to invest in more and more dollars in precision delivery, pursuing extremely high tech solutions, while at the same time existing, cost effective solutions are gainsaid.

Those same rounds could be just as easily launched from an 81mm tube any time of the day or night, in any season and in any weather.  They would supply suppressive fire support for a much longer period and at a much faster rate than any airborne solution for a fraction of the cost.

I don't have a problem with arming platforms similar to the Reapers for snap shots.  But I have become exercised over a bureaucracy that finds hundreds of millions for LAV Upgrades and CCVs, not to mention F-35s, but can't find funds to put the 81s back in the battalions (as an example).

I don't believe it really matters if the battalion can man 3, 4, 6 or 8 tubes at a time.  Or if they have to re-role a Rifle Platoon for a short duration as ammunition bearers for the mors.  If the tools were still in the toolshed I am sure someone would figure out how to employ them when the situation warranted.

(On a tangentially related note - if mors heat up when fired at a rate greater than their sustained fire rate, and if mor tubes do not contribute greatly to the accuracy of the fire - why do we not supply mor dets with spare tubes?  You do that with MGs and those are precision works of engineering.  The mor tubes.... less so.  Can you not leave the base plate in place, unclamp the sights and tripod and just drop another tube into the base plate, reclamp and continue firing?)

I don't have a problem with the Air Force buying 65 F-35s, but would 64 mean that much reduction in capability?  Even a paltry 70,000,000 saved would go some ways to supplying simpler gear that can get used by other elements.

70,000,000 - surely that would equate to a Squadron of 15 CCVs at 4 to 5 million apiece?

Equally, 4,000,000 would buy 400 Yamaha Grizzly ATVs with trailers, each capable of moving 698 kg of water, fuel, rations, tents, rucks, sleeping bags, ammunition and SF kits for C6s and C16s (not to mention 81mm mors with spare tubes).

I understand that some people some where are doing these puzzles (I trust that is so).

But in the words of Yul Brynner "it is a puzzlement" to me. 

How can we spend 10s of millions on multiples of kit that is without doubt useful, but can't find dollars to supply low end gear like rifles and bullets and mortars and nvgs, radios and binoculars.  Or the aforementioned ATVs.

I'm sorry. 

This wasn't intended as a rant.  And frankly I didn't mean to come across with that tone.

I can only sit here on the sidelines and sympathize with those of you that live within the process.

I can't even see that the Army can blame the Air Force, or even the Infantry blame the Armoured, when within the infantry a budget is set aside for some 108, expanding to 138, CCVs.  Surely it makes more sense to ensure that low end needs are met before high end needs(??) are addressed?

Just curious, I guess.

Cheers.

 

[dapaterson]

Much of it is less to do with money than ability to acquire and sustain.  It takes people to define requirements, to manage the acquisition, to plan for implementation, and then to manage the in-service fleet.  The number of people we have to do those things is limited.  Multiply that by the number of requirements in the CF, and the demand for people is all but insatiable, so there are trade-offs.

 

[Shrek1985]

Okay, so I get there is not a ton of money to be had, but first of all;

I thought Canada was one of the world's leading producers of titanium? Doesn;t that give us an edge in getting products that need titanium?

And second; just how expensive is a Mortar, really, that we cannot have both capabilities? A lot of armies in much less prosperous nations than ours do. Not to mention mortars are pretty simple weapons. Can we not build our own, or even develop one in relatively little time, to say nothing of a simple copy of a solid type, like the modified brandt 120mm expeditionary force mortar, which is a quite old design.

In WWII as a country that couldn't swing a passable tank until mid-45, we were able to copy a finnish design for a 120mm mortar from basic plans, though we never could get the ammo right. Since then, the technology has refined, but aside from arguably; rifled mortars, not been revolutionized. More than half the world still uses tubes which aren't much different from 1930s french designs when you get down to it.

 

[brihard]

Okay, so I get there is not a ton of money to be had, but first of all;

I thought Canada was one of the world's leading producers of titanium? Doesn;t that give us an edge in getting products that need titanium?

And second; just how expensive is a Mortar, really, that we cannot have both capabilities? A lot of armies in much less prosperous nations than ours do. Not to mention mortars are pretty simple weapons. Can we not build our own, or even develop one in relatively little time, to say nothing of a simple copy of a solid type, like the modified brandt 120mm expeditionary force mortar, which is a quite old design.

In WWII as a country that couldn't swing a passable tank until mid-45, we were able to copy a finnish design for a 120mm mortar from basic plans, though we never could get the ammo right. Since then, the technology has refined, but aside from arguably; rifled mortars, not been revolutionized. More than half the world still uses tubes which aren't much different from 1930s french designs when you get down to it.

The cost for mortars and mortar bombs is a pittance, really. What is in short supply are the PYs necessary to man the capabilities.

Until and unless infantry expansion is on the table, every time you pay Paul you must rob Peter. Assume every man manning those mortars will come from elsewhere in the battalion- where will you find them?

I'm not trying to defend the status quo by any means. Not having mortars sucks huge balls. I'm just shrugging with a sort of fatalism on the issue. I'd be all for adding the... Oh, call it 5-600 people to the infantry corps to restore mortar and pioneer platoons on top of everything else. I just don't see it happening.

 

[McG]

Until and unless infantry expansion is on the table…

Why is the only option a Reg F Inf Bn for mortars?
You may have situated the estimate.

 

[ArmyRick]

As far as man power re-introducing mortars, my take
COA#1 reduce 3rd battalions nil strength and use man power to make a 4th rifle company and assault pioneer platoon + mortar platoon back in cbt spt coys. Forget TOW and eryx, replace those systems with Javelin already

COA#2 Crazy and far fetched, what about changing 3rd battalions into infantry combat support battalions? Leave recce pl and sigs platoon as battalion assets (BN needs eyes and ears), add in full size sniper, assault pioneer and mortar platoons in each of the 3 former rifle companies. The combat support company recce platoon could be an enhanced (pathfinder?) reconnaissance platoon used on call of brigade commander or as a deep surveillance unit.

COA#3 Have at least mortars manned by reserves arty or infantry. I hear the pissing and moaning about reservist can't be deployed on short notice. Maybe not a company or a battalion but a platoon? Very do-able. I have served both sides of the reg force and P Res coin (currently P Res) and I have a realistic understanding of what BOTH components are capable of. The truth is, most of my frequent attendance reserve grunts, breeze through IBTS, are in kick ass shape (we are a country boy company in a rural regiment), have an excellent attitude and jump at opportunities for ex, deployment or course.