US Army News and updates general discussion
- Thread starter Ranger25
- Start date
Honestly Russia could have created a Unified Missile Brigade which combined the ability to fire Iskander-M, Iskander-K, Bastion-P and X-35 missiles, on the same chassis and C4I set up. Instead they made them all non-interchangeable. The US has gone the saner route of integrating a new munition to existing launchers in what appears to be a relatively easy to deploy package. I wonder how much impact the use of Iskander missiles in Syria had.
Also, it's definitely not a TELAR. There's no radar on the Iskander.
USA's Oshkosh will display its Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) with an Orbital ATK’s M230 LF 30 mm lightweight automatic cannon at the National Guard Association of the United States Conference that will be held in Maryland from September 10 to 12.
Oshkosh to feature its Joint Light Tactical Vehicle with a 30mm cannon
Oshkosh to feature its Joint Light Tactical Vehicle with a 30mm cannon
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #65
US Army LRPF may add anti Ship capabilities
The LRPF programs looks to upgrade the current ATACMS range out to 500km(INF limit the US still observes)
While,this program is still in development, with a new Pacific focus, the US Army may be looking to get back into the coastal Artillery/Anti Ship business
New Army Long-Range Missile Might Kill Ships, Too: LRPF « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
The LRPF programs looks to upgrade the current ATACMS range out to 500km(INF limit the US still observes)
While,this program is still in development, with a new Pacific focus, the US Army may be looking to get back into the coastal Artillery/Anti Ship business
New Army Long-Range Missile Might Kill Ships, Too: LRPF « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
The U.S. Army is testing improvement upgrades to the M3 recoilless rifle to make it more ergonomic, lighter and shorter, according to U.S. Army sources
The M3 recoilless rifle is a multi-role anti-armor and anti-personnel weapon system (MAAWS). Any potential upgrade will be part of a foreign technology program, the Army said in a statement.
U.S. Army testing potential upgrades for the M3 recoilless rifle | Echelon-Defense
The M3 recoilless rifle is a multi-role anti-armor and anti-personnel weapon system (MAAWS). Any potential upgrade will be part of a foreign technology program, the Army said in a statement.
U.S. Army testing potential upgrades for the M3 recoilless rifle | Echelon-Defense
The US Army has rolled out its first Stryker with a 30mm gun. Besides the standard ground role, they are also looking at the AAA role that the 30mm gun brings with the use of appropriate ammo.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #69
US Army looking to add ASHM capabilities to the current ATACMS
The us Army is joining the Maratime domain with plans to place new seekers on existing ATACMS missiles. These have a 300km range and the intent is to provide shore based antiShip capabilities to the Army
Carter, Roper Unveil Army’s New Ship-Killer Missile: ATACMS Upgrade « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
The us Army is joining the Maratime domain with plans to place new seekers on existing ATACMS missiles. These have a 300km range and the intent is to provide shore based antiShip capabilities to the Army
Carter, Roper Unveil Army’s New Ship-Killer Missile: ATACMS Upgrade « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #70
Abrams M1A2 SEP V4 under way
The Us Army has begun developing the latest upgrade to the M1.
Will Include new sensors, electronic warfare, lethality and protection upgrades as well as an Active protection system.
My guess it will be the last bridge to a new ground combat vehicle what will be a generational leap
The Army's More Lethal M1A2 SEP v4 Abrams Tank Variant Will Start Testing in the 2020s - Warrior - Scout
The Us Army has begun developing the latest upgrade to the M1.
Will Include new sensors, electronic warfare, lethality and protection upgrades as well as an Active protection system.
My guess it will be the last bridge to a new ground combat vehicle what will be a generational leap
The Army's More Lethal M1A2 SEP v4 Abrams Tank Variant Will Start Testing in the 2020s - Warrior - Scout
Vulcan
Member
Goes wider than that, looks as though certain people want the US Army/USMC to be in the business of coastal defence in general.
PACOM chief eyes coastal defence artillery for South China Sea | IHS Jane's 360
Mentions that the M109A7 should get a look too to study the positibilities to be used as coastal artillery.
One would think that they would be looking at a new tank. The M1 has been around for what, 40 years now.
The basic tank is still very good, much better (depending on version) than any but the very latest Russian vehicles. Just remember what happened in 1991 when the M-1A1 obliterated the soviet style Iraqi army, including the well equipped Republican Guard. I am thinking of the Battle of 73 Easting in particular, but also other actions the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, where greatly outnumbered they were able to annihilate the loosing force with minimal casualties.
Since then the M-1 has received extensive upgrades through the M-1A2 and SEP etc, vectronics and new munitions. The A2 upgrade alone increased the capability of the platform to the degree that it was estimated that a single four tank platoon would be capable of the same feats that once required a troop with nine tanks and thirteen CFVs or a company with fourteen tanks. The SEP V4 will bring it to a new level, as good or better than most other tanks and while a new platform would be good these upgrades will undoubtedly lead to the A3 or maybe a new platform down the track. With Putin's posturing having an upgrade pathway for the entire fleet of several thousand Abrams is probably a good thing.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #74
Agreed, my understanding thenthe US will continued upgrades to the M1 platform to maintain lethality and survivability while reaseraching the future replacement.
Some thoughts from a resent Army research paper.
"Fires
Wide range of options to provide significant lethality from very lightweight platforms (very low recoil) and the ability to provide LOS and no LOS effects from the same weapon system, which fire from manned or unmanned platforms working together in teaming formations.
Manned and unmanned teaming of both ground and air platforms to enable advanced autonomous maneuvers such as swarming and unmanned wingman behaviors.
Novel warheads that utilize spherical lethality zones for increased probability of hit and incapacitation of targets, resulting in reductions to stowed ammunition while enabling scalable lethality effects. Extremely high impetus propellants for hyper-velocity projectiles will provide increased anti-materiel defeat range.
Electric fires capability, which may include high-energy lasers, high power microwaves, electromagnetic launch, and plasma weapons to provide scalable, lethal, precise, low cost effects across a range of operations.
Significantly advanced targeting and sensing systems that will have the ability to provide targeting data with minimal latency through the Network, assist in rapid target acquisition and identification, and provide innovative sensing approaches that surmise intent (using complex data mining and metric calculations) of perceived threats granting unparalleled situational awareness."
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #75
USArmy Personell poll
New polling inside the US Army seems to indicate active duty troops are not concerned with US PRes Obamas army priorities of Females in combat minority growth. Instead the Troops want fair pay and to be left out of his politics.
Link and story here
If Trump wants to impress the military, he'll order a decent pay raise
New polling inside the US Army seems to indicate active duty troops are not concerned with US PRes Obamas army priorities of Females in combat minority growth. Instead the Troops want fair pay and to be left out of his politics.
Link and story here
If Trump wants to impress the military, he'll order a decent pay raise
More along the same lines. The Army. Looking to the past to remain relevant in the Pacific theater of operations. I guess the question is how many Asian countries along the First Island Chain would be willing to host such a force?
A U.S. Army Role in Countering China’s A2/AD Efforts: The Expeditionary Coastal Artillery Brigade
Adioz
New Member
I may be wrong, but AFAIK, US Army has no Artillery Divisions. I find this odd. What is even more odd is the small number (421 M777A2*) of artillery guns deployed. All this makes me feel that US Army relies more on airstrikes and even the artillery units rely mostly on Guided Munitions. It seems the US Army only looks at Artillery as a support arm.
*Are the M198 still in service?
Also, is there a plan to equip units that have 105mm guns with 155mm?
I contrast this with the Indian Army. Each Strike Corps of the IA has one Artillery Division. Apart from that, all types of divisions (Armored, Infantry, Mountain or RAPID) have one artillery brigade each (true for all Holding Corps). The total stands at approximately 218 artillery regiments.
Now, the idea behind the Artillery divisions is "maneuver by fire". The Artillery is integrated into the Strike Corps so that the maneuver formations do not necessarily advance under cover of artillery support. Rather, they advance to support the Artillery strike. As and when required, the Mechanized forces can take the center-stage, with Artillery switching to supporting role. This role-switch can be performed alternately, thereby maintaining a high operational tempo. This option seems absent for US Army.
One thing I really like about US Army artillery is the modular-versatility of the rocket artillery units. The M270 is like the Pinaka MBRL, Prahaar MBRL and Brahmos SSM all thrown into one (although Brahmos has no parallel in the M270's rockets). I wish India also creates a common platform like the M270. The IA has only recently started introducing rocket and SSM artillery in numbers. The plan is to field some 22 Pinaka regiments by 2022 along with some 6 regiments of Brahmos. (Which is not nearly enough.)
Another question, M777A2 has a 155mm X 39 mm caliber. Why is the M777ER not being inducted? I can understand why Marines would need an All-Ultra-light-howitzer-force, but should the US Army not have 155mm X 52mm as the standard?
*Are the M198 still in service?
Also, is there a plan to equip units that have 105mm guns with 155mm?
I contrast this with the Indian Army. Each Strike Corps of the IA has one Artillery Division. Apart from that, all types of divisions (Armored, Infantry, Mountain or RAPID) have one artillery brigade each (true for all Holding Corps). The total stands at approximately 218 artillery regiments.
Now, the idea behind the Artillery divisions is "maneuver by fire". The Artillery is integrated into the Strike Corps so that the maneuver formations do not necessarily advance under cover of artillery support. Rather, they advance to support the Artillery strike. As and when required, the Mechanized forces can take the center-stage, with Artillery switching to supporting role. This role-switch can be performed alternately, thereby maintaining a high operational tempo. This option seems absent for US Army.
One thing I really like about US Army artillery is the modular-versatility of the rocket artillery units. The M270 is like the Pinaka MBRL, Prahaar MBRL and Brahmos SSM all thrown into one (although Brahmos has no parallel in the M270's rockets). I wish India also creates a common platform like the M270. The IA has only recently started introducing rocket and SSM artillery in numbers. The plan is to field some 22 Pinaka regiments by 2022 along with some 6 regiments of Brahmos. (Which is not nearly enough.)
Another question, M777A2 has a 155mm X 39 mm caliber. Why is the M777ER not being inducted? I can understand why Marines would need an All-Ultra-light-howitzer-force, but should the US Army not have 155mm X 52mm as the standard?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #78
I may be wrong, but AFAIK, US Army has no Artillery Divisions. I find this odd. What is even more odd is the small number (421 M777A2*) of artillery guns deployed. All this makes me feel that US Army relies more on airstrikes and even the artillery units rely mostly on Guided Munitions. It seems the US Army only looks at Artillery as a support arm.
*Are the M198 still in service?
Also, is there a plan to equip units that have 105mm guns with 155mm?
I contrast this with the Indian Army. Each Strike Corps of the IA has one Artillery Division. Apart from that, all types of divisions (Armored, Infantry, Mountain or RAPID) have one artillery brigade each (true for all Holding Corps). The total stands at approximately 218 artillery regiments.
Now, the idea behind the Artillery divisions is "maneuver by fire". The Artillery is integrated into the Strike Corps so that the maneuver formations do not necessarily advance under cover of artillery support. Rather, they advance to support the Artillery strike. As and when required, the Mechanized forces can take the center-stage, with Artillery switching to supporting role. This role-switch can be performed alternately, thereby maintaining a high operational tempo. This option seems absent for US Army.
One thing I really like about US Army artillery is the modular-versatility of the rocket artillery units. The M270 is like the Pinaka MBRL, Prahaar MBRL and Brahmos SSM all thrown into one (although Brahmos has no parallel in the M270's rockets). I wish India also creates a common platform like the M270. The IA has only recently started introducing rocket and SSM artillery in numbers. The plan is to field some 22 Pinaka regiments by 2022 along with some 6 regiments of Brahmos. (Which is not nearly enough.)
Another question, M777A2 has a 155mm X 39 mm caliber. Why is the M777ER not being inducted? I can understand why Marines would need an All-Ultra-light-howitzer-force, but should the US Army not have 155mm X 52mm as the standard?
Correct, no Artillery Divisions. Indirect Assts are Integrated into Brigade level teams and also can be Division and Corps Assets. The US Army also has M998 towed 155, and the lighter M119 105. They're relying more on the newer HIMARS and working on a new concept called Long Range Pritective Fires designed to deep strike beyond 300km. One could argue this is more designed for application in more contested airspace where CAS isn't guaranteed.
Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) | USAASC
Adioz
New Member
That link is not working for me. Anyhow, I read an article about the same on breakingdefense.com titled: "New Army Long-Range Missile Might Kill Ships, Too: LRPF." What I deciphered from this article is that LRPF hinges on the ATACMS, which is being upgraded to allow US Army Artillery to hit targets out to 500 km. I would be interested to know how much more they can increase the range to if they decide not to stick with the treaty.
This LRPF concept, however, does not seem new to me. Artillery Divisions of the Indian Army today have the capability to hit targets out to 300km and by 2022, will have the capability to hit targets out to 1500km (up to 600km Brahmos SSM: after minor upgrades to existing systems; 750-1500km Shaurya SSM: in production).
Meanwhile, China and Russia already have these capabilities.
This seems like gross neglect of the artillery arm of the US Army, and even now, LRPF concept is only addressing part of the problem. What to do about howitzers. They are very few in number, considering the size of the US Army. Are units with the 105 mm not going to be upgraded to 155mm? And how many M198 are in service?
All this looks like a result of America's over-reliance on air-power and CAS. Now that they realize that US air-superiority is not guaranteed in every conflict, they are revisiting artillery.
About the ATACMS though, how does it compare with the Brahmos in terms of cost vs capability? I am interested in this because these two missiles seem like they fulfill similar requirements in both Armies, and yet it looks like Brahmos has a lower payload vs range and a more sophisticated seeker resulting in a higher cost price. Does the ATACMS behave like a cruise missile (does it maneuver)? It does seem more cost effective though. Also, what other SSMs does the US Army use in a tactical role?
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
The M998 was the original HMMWV (Humvee). The M198 was a towed 155mm howitzer fielded by the US military. It is no loner in service with US forces.
The only artillery fielded by the US military are the M109 series 155 mm self propelled howitzers, the M777 155 mm & M119 105 mm series of towed howitzers. Along with the M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS rocket artillery.
The USMC also operates a number of M327 120mm Expeditionary Fire Support Systems (French MO-120 RT-61, 120 mm rifled mortars) as artillery systems as they can be transported by MV-22 Ospreys ,and less known within the AAV-P7 amphibious assault vehicles, for early entry forces, until larger systems can be landed.
As far as I am aware, the US military has never fielded any Artillery Divisions. The largest US artillery formations have been Artillery Brigades with a number of subordinate regiments.