US Artillery Development

[Artyengineer]

This article posted a while back should make some people within the US Artillery Community sit up and take note:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005641.php

The South Africans (and a few others) are making outstanding advances with their charges and munitions, the result being that at German 52 Cal PZH2000 achieved a range of 56km firing Denels V - LAP munition with a Zone 6 Charge.

More info on the V-LAP munition can be found at the link below:

http://www.denel.co.za/Landsystems/Artillery_Systems.asp

A G6 Howitzer, again with a 52 cal tube and firing V - LAP with Zone 6 achieved a range of 76 km !!!! Even more impressive is that it only had a Probable error in range of 0.38%, and a deflection error of 0.58 mils. (I will eleaborate on these terms is anyone requires me to)

Meanwhile the US pursues the NLOS - C system. To save weight this system has only got a 38 cal tube and the chamber size has been reduced to only accept a Zone 4 charge. Considering that a 39 cal tube can only achieve 30 km with a rocket assisted projectile and Zone 5 charge, the US is POTENTIALLY leaving itself seriously outranged with regards to any artillery duel. Even the M982 Excalibur munition will not achieve these type of ranges, and due to cost these munitions will be reserved for high value targets, not supressive and general supporting fires of ground forces.

Thoughts Please?

P.S. Does this site accept HTML coding to embed pictures and such within posts and to make quoted links active using the img src= and a href= tags respectively.

[LancerMc]

The NLOS system the army is developing for FCS is quite unique and a capable artillery piece. You are correct that it will suffer range issues and also not be able to deploy the latest rocket assisted ammunition. Though the army is probably working on some kind of solution for that in the future. The NLOS true capabilities is the the fact is it quickly deployable and combat ready compared to other modern systems. The Hs2000 and Paladin are extremely heavy machines that require either heavy airlift or ships to transport them. The G6 with a wheeled system is more deployable. For the Army to have a effective artillery piece that can be deployed in moments notice will help. The NLOS will probably had another advantage compared to other modern mobile artillery pieces in the fact it will work better in a urban environment then its long caliber brothers.

In the end, the NLOS will be a great machine, but the Army should not abandon future systems like the G6, Paladin, and Hs2000 because range that these systems offer will always be useful on the battlefield.

[aaaditya]

hey guys does anyone have any idea about the status of the crusader artillery gun,can anyone provide any links about it ,since i have a lot of interest in that programme?

[Artyengineer]

The Crusader Program was cancelled on the 8th May 2002 by order of the Secretary of Defence. United Defense (Now Part of BAE SYSTEMS, Land & Armaments Division) announced this to the world the following day.

The Crusader team almost in their entirety transformed into the NLOS - C team overnight.

[Artyengineer]

In the end, the NLOS will be a great machine, but the Army should not abandon future systems like the G6, Paladin, and Hs2000 because range that these systems offer will always be useful on the battlefield.

NLOS - C is an engineering marvel, to see the ammo handling system in full flow is awesome.........when it works ;)

However will it be a GREAT Howitzer? At this moment in time I do not believe it will give the US Army the capabilities it needs. Unlike many I do not have 100% confidence in always being able to rely on Air to carry out the counterbattery fire mission, and support of ground troops.

[Gollevainen]

Gollevainen's mood rises high everytime an artillery discussion kicks in:D

A G6 Howitzer, again with a 52 cal tube and firing V - LAP with Zone 6 achieved a range of 76 km !!!! Even more impressive is that it only had a Probable error in range of 0.38%, and a deflection error of 0.58 mils. (I will eleaborate on these terms is anyone requires me to)

Ranking and position systems of other countryes artillery have always interested me, could you eleaborate bit more? Those errors seems quite small, what sort of positioning and target aqusisation system was used? GBS? Or gyro(magnetic compass) like we used with our 155K98?

Also the proper english terms of the charges interests me. Whit our 155K98, we used so called "finnish" termilogy which was, as i assume like above, zone 1 being the smallest (one bag of powder) and zone 5 the biggest (5 bags respectevly) as a standart unit and then a special "full charge" with only one "big bag". Is the zone 6 similar with one big powder bag or just 6 standart powderbags?
To us gunners, the system was bit confusing as we also used the soviet systems when firing with D-30s. It was pretty much the same, only that the zone 1 ment the biggest standart charge and zone 5 the smallest...so we had to be carefull what to load when the fire commands came...

[Artyengineer]

Gollevainen,

Glad to hear you are an artillery enthusiast ;) Im sure you are aware it is the "KING OF BATTLE". Will respond in depth tomorrow regarding what these numbers mean, and also exactly how an artillery weapon systems accuracy is determined.

[Grand Danois]

Will respond in depth tomorrow regarding what these numbers mean, and also exactly how an artillery weapon systems accuracy is determined.

Gollevainen is not the only one looking forward to that ;)

[Gollevainen]

Gollevainen,

Glad to hear you are an artillery enthusiast Im sure you are aware it is the "KING OF BATTLE". Will respond in depth tomorrow regarding what these numbers mean, and also exactly how an artillery weapon systems accuracy is determined.

Well as a artillery corporal (reserve), i'm well aware, and even more proud of the "supreme branch"...waiting eagerly to hear your more depht awnsers:smoker

[Rich]

How do you spell NETFIRES. I cant see tubes alone every being deployed and there is the big problem of getting the thing "there" in the first place. For some reason I thought the smart and ER shells were going to be compatable with all future US Army tubes.

[Artyengineer]

Artillery System Characterisation.

The US artillery community believes that to engage a target accurately, regardless of range there are certain sets of data required.

Below is a section from FM 6-40, Tactics, Techniques & Procedures for Field Artillery Manual Cannon Gunnery:

“1-3. Five Requirements for Accurate Predicted Fire
To achieve accurate first-round fire for effect (FFE) on a target, an artillery unit must compensate for nonstandard conditions as completely as time and the tactical situation permit. There are five requirements for achieving accurate first-round fire for effect.

These requirements are:
1. Accurate target location and size
2. Firing unit location
3. Weapon and ammunition information
4. Meteorological information
5. Computational procedures.

If these requirements are met, the firing unit will be able to deliver accurate and timely fires in support of the ground-gaining arms.”

As we can see from this the actual weapon system is only half of one of these critical features, the other being the ammunition. Both projectiles and charges.

Weapon Aspects

With regards to the weapon the critical aspects are the accuracy of its Fire Control, how well the Fire Control had been aligned (Boresighted) to the tube, and any slop/backlash within the elevation and traversing mechanisms of the weapon. Any modern fire control system, be it glass and iron or a digital system using an INU should be able to maintain an alignment of within 0.5 mils in both elevation and azimuth through the full range of elevation and traverse.

The Mil is the standard term used for angular measurement within the artillery community. In western militaries there are 6400 mils in one revolution. In the Former Warsaw Pact there is either 6000 or 6200 (Maybe someone can confirm for me?). Needless to say it is a rather small angle!!! (0.056 Degrees). The western system is very convenient as it is almost exactly the angle formed by a 1 meter opposite side of a triangle with adjacent side 1000 meters.

Ammunition Aspects.

With regards to the Ammunition the critical aspects are consistency of weight, dimensions, Centre of Gravity and Surface finish for the Projectile, and for the charge it is consistency of developed chamber pressure and hence developed muzzle velocity. These all impact the ballistic performance of the round as it travels through the air with regards to consistency and conformance to the theoretical model.


What does all this mean to the 0.38% Probable Error in Range, and the 0.58 Mils Deflection errors quoted for the G6 Howitzer, V-LAP Projectile and Zone 6 charge combination I quoted in my original post?

Well, if the test was carried out like those I have been involved with in the US these numbers are not a measure of the systems accuracy, but of its precision. These are two very different and often confused terms.

Because a systems accuracy is affected and in fact dominated by aspects other than the weapon these variable must be eliminated. This is done as follows:

1. Target Location.

For weapon characterization there is no actual target, rather the impacts are very precisely spotted by using a minimum of 4 observers arrayed parallel to the line of fire. Each observer is set op on a known surveyed position, accurate to within 1 meter, usually less. Each one of them will determine an azimuth to the impact and the centre of the smallest triangle formed by any three of these observers azimuths is recorded as the impact point.

2. Firing Unit Location

Even though the weapon systems may have an onboard Nav system, once again the actual position of the weapon is precisely surveyed in to an accuracy of less than 1 meter.

3. Weapon and Ammunition

The weapons Fire Control is verified as being aligned and the charges and projectiles are conditioned, usually at 70 Degrees F.

4. Meteorological Data.

Met is collected at the optimum point of the trajectory and up dated as often as possible.

5. Computation

As explained weapon characterization is not a test of the validity and accuracy of the computational model, this is just used initially to determine a solution to hit within a desired impact zone where the observers can get good observations on the impacts. All shots will be fired on the same Azimuth and Elevation unless a huge change in Met conditions would put the impacts out of the safety zone.


The weapon will fire groups of rounds within a certain time frame, usually 10 - 15 rounds within a 30 minute period. This constitutes on group. For this group of impacts the Mean Point of Impact is calculated and the spread of the rounds from this point in range and deflection are what is used to generate thenumbers initially quoted.

To get statistical validity several hundred if not thousands of groups must be fired. Only then can reliable values for Range Probable Error and Deflection Error be obtained.

Assuming this was how the G6 76km shots were assessed we can tell the following:

The 0.38% Probable Error in Range means that 50% of the rounds fired landed no further than +/- 0.0038 x 76000 = 288 meters from teh MPI along the Azimuth to Mean Point of Impact Line.

Doesnt quite seem so impressive now does it? But trust me at that range actually it is;)

With regards to Deflection ie the spread left to right of the Azimuth to MPI line, or "Mean Deflection Line", because this property has not been quoted as a Probable Error but as an actual angular measurement we can infer that 100% of the rounds lie within this. At 76,000 meters this 0.58 mils equates to within 43 meters left and right of the MPI. This is actually VERY impressive at that range.

This is exactly what I would expect to see, range errors are always considerably greater than deflection errors.

Hope this little ramble hasnt bored anyone to tears. If you want I can explain the joys of Realistic Accuracy Testing , Hasty Survey, poorly conditioned charges, Stale Met poorly positioned Forward Observer and so on, not to mention the fun of calculating Circular Error Probable. then arguing over the results and whether it was a "Fair Test" or not.

Regarding the question of the zone 6 charge used, here is an image of the Current US Modular Charge System and its equivilent Bag Charges.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/adjstewart/Military/macsbag2.gif

Note the Zone 6 charge whch was being developed for crusader but is no defunct has no equivilent bag charge. This is the same for all current zone 6 charges, be they South African, Japanese or whoever.

[Grand Danois]

Arty,

I might be confused about the terms...

If the quoted values of precision is probable error around the mean value of the grouping, then how does one account for the accuracy against a fixed coordinate?

:)

[EDIT: What I mean is, if the values given are weapon characterization then what values are given for "operational" accuracy?]

[Artyengineer]

Good Question,

A weapons Accuracy is given as a Circular Error Probable (CEP) value in meters. What this is is a radius from the target point inside which 50% of the rounds have landed.

The test is carried out similar to the weapon characterisation with regards to firing groups of rounds within a specified time frame.

However, Operational aspects such as realistic Met updates are used, the weapons systems on board locational system will be used to determin firing unit location, Projectiles and charges will be stored as they would in the field. Propellant temperatures are taken at operational intervals and used in the Ballistic Computation etc.

However for a given group once the solution has been determined all rounds in that group will fired on the same data. No Adjustments of Fire will be made.

Actual CEP values are very rarely quoted in Public for obvious reasons. However regardless of a weapons CEP value, so long as it is precise accurate adjustments of fire can be made.

[Grand Danois]

Thanks,

It was the methodology and not actual CEP values I was interested in.

:)

[Gollevainen]

Thanks from answering...thougth the terminolgy sounds rather akward to me...we had our own finnish military terms and they seem to different from the US equals...but the contest speaks from itself, thank you.:cool:

[Pursuit Curve]

Wow, 76 km range. It seems that a system like this would be a candidate for RPV observation to support it. I am no expert, but does the american MLRS system figure into this comparison? Also, I do not think that the miltary doctrine of the US Army will rely only on tube artillery alone, I do believe that any artillery that falls outside of the US Armies tube range will be passed on fixed wing or rotary wing assets to attack.

I am just injecting this POV to learn from the professionals here :)

[Gollevainen]

Yo artyengineer, I noticed from your userspecs that you are test-engineer for the M777 howitser. Now that gun has facinated me for while now as it seems to be the closest western counterpart to soviet D-30 in structual (I'm not sure if it's the right word, meaning the positioning of the trailing legs, wheels and the general deployment). Basicly the both weapons have different appearance to other guns with conventional splitrails so what i'm asking is, can you enlighten me about the M777s assemble/disassemble methods? We could start a new thread about it if it would bee too oftopic in this one...what do you think?

[Artyengineer]

Wow, 76 km range. It seems that a system like this would be a candidate for RPV observation to support it. I am no expert, but does the american MLRS system figure into this comparison? Also, I do not think that the miltary doctrine of the US Army will rely only on tube artillery alone, I do believe that any artillery that falls outside of the US Armies tube range will be passed on fixed wing or rotary wing assets to attack.

I am just injecting this POV to learn from the professionals here :)

I will give my thought s on this in a bit, that horrible think called work keeps getting in the way;)

What I will say now ;) is this, If I was on the recieving end of long range artillery fire and had to sit round and wait until Air Assets showed up to take care of I would not be a happy camper. The only aviation that the Army has is as you noted rotary wing, we all know what hapened when Apaches entered into a highly concentrated small arms and MANPAD area.

Fixed wing aircraft will never have 100% persistence over the area of operations, that a personal belief however so is open to debate.

[Artyengineer]

Yo artyengineer, I noticed from your userspecs that you are test-engineer for the M777 howitser. Now that gun has facinated me for while now as it seems to be the closest western counterpart to soviet D-30 in structual (I'm not sure if it's the right word, meaning the positioning of the trailing legs, wheels and the general deployment). Basicly the both weapons have different appearance to other guns with conventional splitrails so what i'm asking is, can you enlighten me about the M777s assemble/disassemble methods? We could start a new thread about it if it would bee too oftopic in this one...what do you think?


Sounds like a good idea, If you want to start a thread with a few questions be my guest;)

Arty

[Pursuit Curve]

Arty, thank you for your reply. The reason I posted that question is based on what I have read here so far. If the US is lagging behind in Tube artillery range than I can only presume that they are placing great faith in the Air Assets to be able to extend or plug the gap in range. Our Canadian troops are using the M777 in afghanistan at this time by the way, and I have read that they are very happy with the system, although they are not facing any enemy tube artillery so the comparison in one sided.

Thanks again for your answering my post.

[Artyengineer]

I know those 6 weapons very well, I personally oversaw there total build, acceptance testing and final inspections. Was a good feeling when they had their very first operational shots a few months back.

[Gollevainen]

Sounds like a good idea, If you want to start a thread with a few questions be my guest

It's late in here, so i will do it tommorow...

[long live usa]

germany's new mobile howitser was most impressive from what i saw better than the crusader

[Artyengineer]

germany's new mobile howitser was most impressive from what i saw better than the crusader

The PzH2000 is a very impressive piece of equipment, however it is very big and pretty heavy, not suitable for todays world of rapid deployment.

Crusader if fully developed would have surpassed the PzH 2000 in terms of rate of fire and automation, it was only going to have a 3 man crew. It would have been capable of 12 rounds a minute and carrying out an 8 round MRSI (Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact) Mission. But it would have been even larger and heavier than the PzH2000. Thats the reason it got cancelled, it no longer fitted in to the doctrine and requiremnts of the US Army

[long live usa]

yes when i saw only 2 of those things fire about ten rounds fell on a ridge line at basically the same time it was very impressive,im am also excited about the us army and marine corps getting there M777A1 ultra light field howitsers!!!:) :usa

[Artyengineer]

yes when i saw only 2 of those things fire about ten rounds fell on a ridge line at basically the same time it was very impressive,im am also excited about the us army and marine corps getting there M777A1 ultra light field howitsers!!!:) :usa

Where did you get the chance to see the PzH2000 in operation?

[gf0012-aust]

Where did you get the chance to see the PzH2000 in operation?

Lucky bugger if he has. I've only seen the footage of it "at work" when I was at the 2004 Land Warfare Conf in Oz. Also got to see the corporate doco of the K9 playing in the dirt.

The Sth Koreans were getting a lot of attention from some of the snr army guys.

[Whiskyjack]

Lucky bugger if he has. I've only seen the footage of it "at work" when I was at the 2004 Land Warfare Conf in Oz. Also got to see the corporate doco of the K9 playing in the dirt.

The Sth Koreans were getting a lot of attention from some of the snr army guys.

I have seen the PzH 2000 turret on the MLRS Chassis, this model is being developed for light operations, deployable on A400, very similar specs, here is the link if you are interested.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/artillery/

[Waylander]

I really like the PzH2000 MLRS mix.
For fast airlift in small numbers it should be one of the best solutions. The same performance in terms of fire speed and accuracy like the PzH 2000. And for fast missions against irregular troops the maneuverability and protection should be enough.
Said to say that the Bundeswehr hasn't ordered them yet.

PS: I also saw the PzH2000 in action. ;) :D
We worked together with them during some live fire exercises.The speed of the firing mission is impressive.

[Killjoy]

Guys the G6-52L that achieved the 76km range is capable of 8 round a minute burst fire but can keep this up for only 80 rounds at full charge, thus 10 minutes due to barrel overheating. After that you run the risk of blowing your self up.

I've seen some very intresting footage of the loader on the G6 at work and have had the privalege of seeing this awesome weapon at work many a time. The shear size of it is amazing.

One thing though don't let any saffer (South African) tell you we did it on our own. We had some help which will cause alot of western countries some pretty red faces if it ever got out. I will give you an hint. Take a look at our TTD (tank technology demonstrator). The hatches have distinct leopard features along with a MTU diesel. I will say no more.

[rossfrb_1]

Lucky bugger if he has. I've only seen the footage of it "at work" when I was at the 2004 Land Warfare Conf in Oz. Also got to see the corporate doco of the K9 playing in the dirt.

The Sth Koreans were getting a lot of attention from some of the snr army guys.
As an option for Land 17?
How does this translate into ADF 2006 thinking (esp after the recent budget)?
The K9 is a big unit, though not as big as its German or South African equivalents I think.

rb

[beleg]

K-9 is an impressive unit. On paper it is showing similar capabilities to PzH2000 and in field its performance is superb according to Turkish officers i talked to. Turkey has derived a clone of K-9 with some FCS improvements and some local electronic parts and a modified local turret (known as T-155). Turkey and Korea according to latest news will cooperate on developing an extended range ammo for K-9/T-155. However as stated in the posts above it lacks in deployablility.

[Big-E]

I'm really suprised this conversation hasn't mentioned the FCS NLOS-LS system. I think the ability to put over a dozen munitions on target at over a hundred miles away being carried by a HUMV would revolutionize the artillery game.:o

[Whiskyjack]

I'm really suprised this conversation hasn't mentioned the FCS NLOS-LS system. I think the ability to put over a dozen munitions on target at over a hundred miles away being carried by a HUMV would revolutionize the artillery game.:o

I agree, especially when you consider the ability to minimise civilian casualties. Although Arty will always have its place.

[Zombie Krupp]

I'm really suprised this conversation hasn't mentioned the FCS NLOS-LS system. I think the ability to put over a dozen munitions on target at over a hundred miles away being carried by a HUMV would revolutionize the artillery game.:o

Not really, that system amounts to a pair of very good anti tank missiles and an interesting launcher concept. It cannot do the job of artillery, which requires volume of fire besides all else; you can’t have volume of fire with missiles because each one will cost at least 30 possibly more then 60,000 dollars. You also don’t have the same responsiveness because it flies much slower then an artillery shell.
The effectiveness against soft and semi hard targets is also going to be inferior. The PAM and LAM are both about the size of Hellfire while having much longer range, so the warhead is unlikely to be over Hellfire’s 20 pounds; similar to the weight of explosives in a 155mm shell. But the 155mm shell gains considerable destructiveness from the metal body fragmenting; you don’t really get fragmentation from the thinly built body of a missile, fragments must be built into that 20-ish pound warhead.

I’m not saying NLOS-LS won’t be great to have and quite effective at what it does, but what it does is not general purpose all weather fire support.

[Wild Weasel]

We must assume thats what the NLOS-C is being developed for. Whilst the range of the NLOS-C is supposed to be lower than that of some other contemporary systems, it's accuracy and volume of fire are supposed to be on a par with the best arty systems in production.
Additionally, I understand that the sytem's range can be significantly increased simply by utilizing RAP shells.

NLOS-LS is simply a perfect companion to NLOS-C, providing the warfighter with pinpoint accuracy, and long range- and the ability to attack deep into enemy territory, without risk of drawing counter-battery fire.
The NLOS-LS missile system allows for the destruction of hostile artillery before it can be used to destroy somewhat more vulnerable tube, and rocket artillery units.
Once the threat of counter-battery fire is diminished, the slightly shorter range of the NLOS-C becomes less of a tactical deficit- and the advantge of it's extremly high rate of fire begins to pay out major dividends.

Of course, if range, accuracy, and sheer volume of fire are more important than having a lightweight gun battery like NLOS-C in the theater in the shortest amount of time- I can think of no better option than the MLRS family of weapons and launchers. The term, "Steel Rain", and testimony of it's effects from the mouths of the MLRS-strike survivors- speaks volumes.
It's not just terrifying, it's also terrifyingly effective.

That said, I suppose a flight of several dozen UCAVs loaded with GBU-39s might be an even more effective option. :D

[Big-E]

That said, I suppose a flight of several dozen UCAVs loaded with GBU-39s might be an even more effective option. :D

What about SFW? :shudder

[Wild Weasel]

Depends on the target of course. I was only providing a general purpose loadout, as a "for instance."
But if you intend to wipe out an entire tank battalion, or a regiment of armored infantry in a single sortie from very long range, without the ability to use ground-based artillery assets- then I'd have to agree that several dozen UCAVs loaded with SFW's, BAT, and/or LOCAAS, would certainly do the trick.