We have discussed mortars across a number of posts but how about an alternative to the vehicle mounted 120mm mortars that seem to be in vogue.
A spot os sales blurb from the manufacturer, Mandus Group…
The Hawkeye 105mm Weapon System is a lightweight, modular, high-performance howitzer designed to be integrated with many types of combat transportation. By utilizing emerging technologies, it will set the standard for light artillery in the areas of firepower, tactical mobility, strategic deployability and command and control. The Hawkeye will be a superior alternative to existing weapon systems such as the 106mm Recoilless Rifle, 120mm Mortar, and other 105mm artillery systems due to its low cost precision strike capability.
The Hawkeye has incorporated a groundbreaking modular design. Due to its lightweight and low recoil forces it can be mounted to many types of military vehicles including wheeled, tracked, rail, watercraft, aircraft and towed systems. This means that a performance based 105mm artillery system can be deployed to the land, sea, and air in ways that were never before possible. Additionally, the Hawkeye has been designed to accommodate a full spectrum of barrel lengths if range is a primary requirement.
The Hawkeye’s modular, compact, and lightweight characteristics are attributed to the incorporation of soft recoil technology in its design. Soft recoil technology provides reduced carriage loads allowing carriage structures to be up to 50% lighter than conventional recoil systems. It provides an ergonomic advantage by keeping the breech rear of the carriage structure in all elevations and traversing conditions allowing for easy loading and firing of standard NATO 105mm Cartridges.
Automated digital fire control and semi-fixed 105mm cartridges allow rapid emplacement and minimal time to first round fire. Additionally, the Hawkeye Weapon System offers a 360 degree field of fire while mounted on very light weight tactical vehicles. The Hawkeye’s battle logistics requirements are much less demanding when compared to conventional 105mm artillery. This is due to the simplicity of the system’s design that reduces crew size and decreases maintenance times.
The Hawkeye is a game changing weapon system. Never before has a 105mm howitzer been able to offer the kind of firepower and mobility that the Hawkeye does while remaining lightweight and modular. Incorporate the Hawkeye into your order of battle and unlock your force’s…
Not quite as long ranged as the L118 Light Gun but just over half the weight. Longer ranged than a vehicle mounted 12omm mortar like the Patria NEMO and loads of ammunition natutres as well.
Does it provide any advantage over a conventional towed artillery system, beyond the manufacturers claims of game changingness is this actually anything revolutionary and would one fit on the back of a Foxhound, Pinzgauer or Warthog for example?
Of course, more importantly is would one fit inside an ISO container!
Read the brochure here
Any takers?
Just fantastic. It resembles one of the earliest armoured fighting vehicles ever, a pre-WWI Plattformwagen with Ballonabwehrkanone (carrier car with anti-balloon cannon).
Krupp-Daimler-Plattformwagen model of 1909
http://armoredcars-ww-one.blogspot.de/2012/04/daimler-anti-aircraft-armored-carrier.html
There were more open models of 1910 and 191, the war production SPAAGs had no armour afaik.
TD, I’d say 50/50. There are advantages vs mortars and disadvantages too.
Off the cuff?
Advantages:
Longer range
More ammo types
More flexible firing angles
Disadvantages:
105mm is getting less common, less research into it.
Stronger recoil forces vs a mortar, adds wear and tear to suspension etc.
Mortar rounds tend to carry more high ex than similar calibre artillery rounds.
All in all, I’d say if I didn’t have a 120mm mortar already, I’d go for it, but if I already had one, I’d use that instead.
There might be others I missed that other people might have thought of. Love to hear their views.
Time to action seems to be very good. But how does this thing do direct fire out to 1 km, which would have to be part of this (for the claim to be true):
“a superior alternative to existing weapon systems such as the 106mm Recoilless Rifle, 120mm Mortar”
-maybe the fire control is good enough for the corrections?
http://tankstogo.com/United_States/images/USm7-1.jpg
Firstly, I want one!!!!!
Of course it will fit on the back of a Bronco.
I am now going off to think about using it at sea.
Use at sea? Nah, you want to strap two to the side of a helicopter!
http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/77377-artillery-does-give-a-flying-frak/
http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/aerial-artillery-design-study-two-externally-mounted-xm204-howitzers-on-a-ch-47c-helicopter.pdf
Flying Artillery – literally!
@ Gareth J
Don’t harsh my mellow dude.
@ x –
Hi Gareth, helicopters for flying artillery?
8 of them firing forward, and 2 more to finish the job, firing when the target has already been flown over (6th photo down) http://englishrussia.com/2009/01/25/russian-flying-fortresses/
H’mm. Depends whether or not you think soft recoil is a militarily good idea, while its difficult to judge whether there’s a significant weight reduction in the recoil system, and whether this is worth the added complexity of having to ‘cock’ the mechanism and the extent criticality of exact firing moment when the ordnance (UK not US English)is moving forwards – IIRC this is what screwed the last attempt at soft recoil (XM 204, design 1962, prototype 1970).
The fact that the detachment has to ‘clear the decks’ before the gun fires is not conducive to a high rate of fire (and long firing lanyards always make me laugh, so WW1). Presumably it’s designed to fire smart(ish) ammo only so a high rate of fire will never be needed (incoming of the porcine persuasion).
The thing that puzzles me is that I can’t see the gyro pack fitted to the elevating mass and aligned with the axis of the bore, this is what enables the gun to be layed at the remote laying device. There is a box in some clips but it looks more like an MV radar, and I can’t see the precision mountings for a gyro box. There doesn’t seem to be much by way of servos or hydraulics to remotely lay the gun either.
Hi Obsvr, after this one (carrying on with GJ’s airborne artillery)”screwed the last attempt at soft recoil (XM 204, design 1962, prototype 1970)” there were test firings and very good results from an AC-130 gunship in the 90′s
- they didn’t design a new gun/ howitzer, but rather modified the 105mm piece to take mortar rounds
- much less recoil because of the lesser velocity, and no problem with performance as firing from above the targets
The whole idea was to lessen the stresses to the airframe (and prolong their life). With the extensive use of those planes since, they must wish that the initiative would have gone ahead (it did not)
looks very good but it should be on a tracked system and crew should stay on the gun platform. In other words it has potential but its reloading times are to slow! 120 mm mortar is still useful as this should be RA like the Abbot SPG, useful for assault infantry thus it needs to be amphibious and airdrop-able.
16th aab & RM
Nice youtube video of the XM204. The idea of moving the barrel forward to reduce recoiul is an old one and is in weapons such as the Browning Automatic shotgun and the XM25(?). I believe it can reduce the recoil by up to 70%?
The XM204 had the same problem as other soft recoil (only one term of many for this principle) weapons: The timing of the ignition was too tricky and as a result the dispersion in range was horrible. There’s a XM204 prototype in the WTS Koblenz. http://preview.tinyurl.com/6tohsly
A gun that specialises on course-corrected or even guided munitions would of course not need be degraded by this.
It would rather be degraded by its specialisation.
I don’t get why they cared so much about the recoil to add the soft recoil principle, but don’t appear to make use of even a basic muzzle brake.
@ Gareth J
I have got photos in several books of USN Black Berets using small howitzers (should that be tiny?) in the Mekong Delta.
This Hawk System would take up very little deck space. Magazines may be problem. But I think there is some potential. Even with unguided rounds.
@ x – Sorry, didn’t mean to distract from your idea. Are you talking about mounting the Hawkeye on a boat? Direct fire, indirect or both?
@ Gareth J
On small ships. I don’t think direct fire from the system would be of much use. Not very enamoured with the idea of the land attack frigate per se. But if space for a couple of mounts with a cheap weapon system (without deck penetration) like this could be found it might make the idea workable just. I suppose indirect fire could be used to break up formations of swarming boats too. Not so much to sink them, more to allow direct fire systems more time. To a computer controlled gun would handle “disruption” better than the human coxswain.
Not to mention you need a stabilized mount to get any sort of accuracy in rough sea states. All you need is a platform moving up and down to move your gun all over the place too.
Lower recoil allows usage of the gun on lighter platforms with weaker suspension. The STK SRAM initial tests involved firing an old 120mm mortar from the back of a M-113, I helped set up the test. Results were… sad. Firing went ok, but when the M-113 had to move, it shed both its’ track, the shock of the firings caused the tracks to misalign. A few years down the road and a concerted effort to lower recoil on the mortar resulted in one that could be fired from a light strike vehicle without breaking the suspension. Ammo’s still a problem though, latest theory is to deploy them in packs of 3 (1 Chinook underslung load). One 120mm SRAM, 2 ammo carriers/MG sentries.
Fitting a stabilization system isn’t a problem.
I sometimes wonder about these swarm attacks. Having RYA power quals I am familiar with how comfortable (not!) small boats at high speed can be even in benign conditions. Let say we give the attacking swarm a speed of 60kts, much faster than is realistic, that would mean a nm a minute. If the ship has systems that can reach out 10nm (57mm, 76mm, missile, etc.) it would be a turkey shoot. And I chose 60nm to make the maths easier. Even choke points don’t look too bad. Of course the threat there would be land based systems; anti-ship missiles would be countered with the ship’s AAW systems. But against land based artillery a ship’s main gun backed up by say two of these smaller howitzers and with perhaps several more ships similarly equipped the fight looks a bit fairer. It is that extra weight of fire these systems bring that is the real plus.
I can think of a good reason to go down the 120mm mortar route rather than the 105mm Howitzer.
It’s a lot easier to put a guidance module / course correcting fuse onto a 120mm mortar bomb than it is a 105mm howitzer round. Launch stresses are less and the round is fin rather than spin stabilised.
Mortars also have a higher angle of fire.
This is a great advantage in mountainous terrain, if firing from woods and if firing at relatively close targets (the shell descends more close to vertical, producing a better frag dispersion with HE and even a bit better with DPICM).
Mortars can also be much lighter and even be used in a crew-mobile (short distances for 120 mm) dismounted mode.
Mortars’ accuracy with dumb ammo drops sharply after a few kilometres, though. 105 mm may still be favourable if the mission requires somewhat accurate fires at greater ranges. This is a question of doctrine and formation design (TO&Es).
@S O – if you’re firing unguided rounds in a traditional artillery stonk, how would an MRL like, for example, the old German LARS compare with a battery of 105mm guns?
Somebody (sorry forgoten who…) put up a link about new guided art rounds, both 155mm and 105mm, normal rounds with an add-on guidence module.
@RLC, you the words right out of my mouth. On the back of a small vehicle it sounds great, low weight, good mobility etc. But for the crew it would be a continous ‘mount vehicle, load, dis-mount vehicle, fire!’ Try doing that for a prolonged bombardment and the crew would be on its knees in tears! Plus the ammunition would need another vehicle. It definitely needs a bigger vehicle and crew platform, or at least drop sides which forms a larger platform.
Looking back to WWII, the combination would be similar to the T19 105 mm HMC (M3 Halftrack with a 105 mm Howitzer). Although it could be said that the T19 carried more rounds, had greater mobility and greater crew protection, and that was nearly 70 years ago!
@ Pete:
Not sure I remember correctly what the Commonwealth term “stonk” means. IIRC it was a specific type of firing mission?
LARS has more tubes than necessary for the employment of actual guided munitions. Its range is unsatisfactory as well.
Nevertheless, MRL have their typical advantage of many shots in short time (firing intervals can be as small as 0.5 sec), which is of great utility for surprise strikes (or if you want to lay a minefield real quick) while the typically slow reload and correspondingly poor sustained rate of fire make it unsuitable for certain fire missions (such as keeping a road blocked with harassing fires).
Smart munitions come in four different categories, and the consequences for their employment vary a lot:
- independent seeker munitions (see SmArt 155 or STRIX, for example)
- dependent seeker munitions (classic Copperhead)
- coordinate-attacking munitions (satellite navigation or really good inertial navigation system)
- trajectory-corrected munitions (timing the deployment of an aerodynamic brake to reduce the range dispersion, usually dependent on some uplink which in turn depends on radar tracking of the munition’s trajectory)
The last category should be the quantity replacement for dumb munitions, while the third one (with INS) may become cheap enough to take over in this decade. Guidance is easier with fin stabilisation, so MRLs are a more natural choice for two-dimensional steering than SPGs.
The most accurate munitions (IIR, SAL, mmW, GPS) are only important at long range and will probably stay in the minority for decades to come.
I am sure I posted a picture of Priest SPG further up……..oh yes so I did.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/spain_spanish_army_light_and_heavy_weapons_uk/eimos_expal_integrated_mortar_system_light_wheeled_vehicle_spain_spanish_army_technical_data_sheet_p.html
Gareth – SPOOK as my son would say, I just posted that exact same link to the Foxhound thread, and just came here, but you beat me to it !
Great minds think alike ????
Unlike the Hawkeye, a 120mm mortar regularly carried in an APC, and the towed 105mm light gun can both be easily deployed without a vehicle if necessary.
I’d be interested to see a mounted gun that combined the under-armour, 360 degree direct-fire, ready-to-fire features of an MGS, with the high forward-aspect howitzer elevation of an SPG. (Stryker MGS has only 18 degree elevation for direct fires only, CMI’s CT-CV 105mm system has 42 degree all round elevation – I had in mind all round direct fires with >60 degree elevation in a forward arc).
The plan for the now defunct MRBs envisaged ten L118 batteries -on top of 7 Para and 29 Commando regiments- after the re-role of a number of AS90 batteries. That seemed to me an awful lot of light gun batteries; a RA regiment with 120mm armoured mortar carriers would be a useful addition (new build ASCOD, or are there spare Warriors?). I don’t see the benefit of something like Hawkeye though – looks like you lose the flexible mobility of a light towed gun when you bolt a truck to it, and any gain in time-to-fire for Hawkeye seems offset by inconvenient sustained fire.
Brian, you are asking for this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV433_Abbot_SPG
I can understand the soft recoil attraction for son of Spooky, etc, where presumably a muzzle brake deflecting blast causes more problems for the a/c than it solves. I also suspect that in that role the guns only ever use the same one charge which greatly somplifies the problem of firing at the correct moment as the ordnance moves forward. However, for land service it is just more complexity for no obvious benefit, its something else to go wrong, and in a 24 x 365 system, which is what artillery is, simplicity and reliability are highly desirable characteristics.
Hi BB,
OK, Abbot is still in service in India, but this should be close
“The 120-mm 2S9 Nona-S (Anemone) self-propelled howitzer/mortar was first seen in public in May 1985 and it is an airborne artillery assault vehicle that has been developed to carry out two tactical functions: conventional artillery equipment to replace existing mortars and howitzers and as a direct fire anti-tank weapon system firing HEAT projectiles.”
And as it is relatively light (para-droppable), going back to James’s point, the suspension is raised when firing (to stiffen it up)
Obsvr, a specially developed illu round (for long-lasting effect) is also used on AC-130, RE
” I also suspect that in that role the guns only ever use the same one charge”
Two thoughts for naval use.
Firstly for a modern motor gun boat .
Secondly, get inspiration from the design of missile silos, to have a 105mm gun rise out of the deck of an SSN to support special ops.
@ John Hartley
Risk a billion pound SSN on the surface to throw a few shells? Um, no. It runs against everything modern submarine warfare.
Then what about stabilising it? That would take up precious volume. Submarines rooooooooollllll a bit in lump seas.
Well… to be fair, there is precedence in WWII subs for a gun on deck, though with VLS, most subs simply use missiles nowadays. Longer range, one round effectiveness, accuracy.
@gareth it was me! the ATK precision guided kit (PGK) screws onto the front of 105/155mm shells, only requires 1 component change between the 2 calibres. For the price of the kit this could be an important addition to the RA’s kit list as it enables mission success with fewer rounds and can be used at all levels, light guns of 16AAB to the heavy stuff in the new AI brigades.
https://www.atk.com/Products/documents/PGK%20-%20Precision%20Guidance%20Kit.pdf
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry/atk_completes_successful_artillery_precision_guidance_kit_pgk_testing_0610113.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUvU8S7Mj8o
there is another vid on you tube where at 20km the shells are smashing into targets as direct hits! that’s why they reckon 77 shells with PGK fitted can do as much damage as 300 without.
Hi paul g,
The Yanks have the same sort of thing for 120mm mortars, too
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/atk-precision-guided-mortar-munition-scores-direct-hit-in-guided-flight-test-51658347.html
- looks like they started that development in earnest in 2004, no doubt with urban combat as a driver
… and it took a while, the first front line units got it in March 2011
“the APMI cartridge has a requirement of 10 meters CEP, or Circular Error Probable, but Burke said the program is exceeding this requirement. Ten meters CEP means that if you drew a circle around a target at 10 meters radius, the rounds have to fall inside the circle 50 percent of the time.
Current CEP for 120 mm mortars at their maximum range is 136 meters. Mortars with the most advanced features, such as precision position and pointing systems, can achieve a 76 meter CEP”
http://www.army.mil/article/53988/
@ Observer said “Well… to be fair, there is precedence in WWII subs for a gun on deck,”
If I had said something similar you would be quickly pointing out the short comings wouldn’t you?
The deck gun was already becoming an anachronism in WW2. It was too risky to surface with aircraft and RADAR becoming prevalent. When the Kriegsmarine armed U-boats with AAA it was more out of desperation than anything else. And though some ships were sunk with a deck gun it was more often than not after the ship had surrendered. Submarines of the era weren’t a good gun platform; actually rigidly mounting a good chunk of metal to the deck probably helped to increase roll. As sonars improved deck guns became a source of noise. Comparing a Type VII to an Astute is like comparing a Handley-Page to a B2
X
SSNs are at their best deep under the open ocean. However it is harder & harder to justify their cost just doing that. So they get used on intelligence gathering & special ops duties which brings them closer to shore. You only want them on the surface for the minimum time, but I feel they need some protection while they are there. A gun that can rise out of the hull is one way of doing it. A torpedo tube launched missile would also do it.
“If I had said something similar you would be quickly pointing out the short comings wouldn’t you?”
Nah, I’m not you. Mr “WWII wants their tactics back.”
No you are more like Mr Which-way-does-the-bullet-come-out?
You know, you’re just proving my point.
Anyway, just because something is old, does not mean it’s ineffective. Running up to someone and sticking a bayonett in is even older than WWII, but if someone actually does it, guess what? The enemy dies! Isn’t that strange… And if you recall, James did mention some bayonett work. When? GW1.
You seem to equate “old” with “unusable”. I suggest T45 can do some ship to ship with it’s gun, you claim unworkable due to old tactics, John suggests some NGS+ with a sub gun, you claim unworkable due to old tactics. Guess what? Mines, artillery, tanks and dropping bombs date from WWI. Guess they all can’t be used now against our laser and force shield infantry can they?
A gun on a SSN is not a good idea but what about a modern version of the U-boat? Essentially a submersible sloop; long ranged, blockade runner/enforcer with VBSS teams and gun. Possibly UAV’s? Ability to (shallow) dive a safety/stealth feature?
I’m going to do a Gareth Jones and do this.
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/technology-innovation/smx-25/
Something like this?
@ Observer – well, more sentry frigate/coast guard cutter but something similar…
Gareth, I made a similar suggestion on another thread a few months ago, I think it was Observer who pointed me in the same direction with the SMX-25. My comment mentioned about the fact the Zumwalt class looked very much like a ‘U’ boat, albeit one which couldn’t submerge.
Given the advent of super-sonic anti-ship weapons, being able to submerge may be a life saver in this respect.
Hi, S O. (June 24 01:37)
Pah! If you think field-marshall Brian is going to have rusty old antique Abbots in his fantasy army…
The Abbot is very much just an SPG. Think more along the lines of – I’m a Centauro MGS, I have a fully stabilized 105mm gun, 45 degree elevation in a 360 degree traverse, I’m merrily pootling about the battlefield; but then forget about Centauro, because I’ve parked up, I’ve dropped my back door for crew and ammo access, and my gun now elevates to 70 degrees in a forward arc. So I’m a 105mm assault gun/MGS one moment, a self propelled howitzer the next.