Last month I published a long and detailed post on Watchkeeper, towards the end I looked at the potential for arming it some time in the medium term future.
Low yield and precise weapons such as the Lightweight Multirole Missile would be ideal because not only is it fast and precise, it also has a low yield and warhead design that suits the likely target types.
A number of other options exist should the LMM not be suitable and there has been some considerable developments in 5-10kg guided weapon class such as the LM Shadow Hawk, ATK MAW and MBDASABER
Raytheon also have a dog in the ‘lightweight UAV bomb’ fight and have released a video of their Small Tactical Munition
Image gallery here, but to get an idea of the small size of these kinds of weapons, click here
The trend in air launched munitions has been to decrease weight and increase precision and accuracy in order to reduce off target effects and these just seem the logical extension of that trend.
What I find most interesting about these is the potential for changing future operations, imagine a swarm of small UAV’s armed with one each or a tactical aircraft with 30 or 40, persistent and pervasive close air support or almost instantaneous reaction to targets of opportunity (ROE permitting of course) offer a glimpse of an interesting future.
I seem to remember seeing a similar idea but using standard 81mm and 60mm mortar rounds with laser homing incorporated in the fuses to give UAVs a cheap, light, guided weapon with a small risk of collateral damage.
EDIT: A quick Google search found it . . .
http://defense-update.com/products/a/adm_09042010.html
Why not a guided CRV7? It amazes me that this has never been seriously considered. Far cheaper than LMM and takes advantage of enormous stocks of unguided CRV7s. Really, I think money is wasted on LMM.
This Nammo Tally – Raytheon thingy is just 6 kg
http://www.uasvision.com/2012/07/10/raytheon%E2%80%99s-purpose-built-uas-bomb-ready-for-live-tests/
There’s a very interesting piece of thinking and balancing to be done to find the best trade off in terms of capability (AKA accuracy / amount of bang) and cost between a series of “solutions”:
1. Mortars firing in response to human eyes-on a target.
2. Mortars firing in response to UAV camera on a target, as down-resolutionised by what the data link will handle and presented on a computer screen, and probably from an unfamiliar aspect angle.
3. Ditto (1) and (2) for artillery – same problems, longer range.
4. Ditto (2) for Loitering Munitions such as Fire Shadow, with the added complication of from which range to attack as you have the benefit of a rocket motor to increase range at the expense of resolution.
5. Ditto (4) for medium and long endurance UAVs.
From (1) to (5), costs increase quite a lot (not tried plotting them, suspect it would look fairly logarithmic), and system costs even more so, with complex data links and rebros etc.
Probably, 3 systems are needed – cheap ‘n cheerful for battlefield use, medium, and high end. Whether we can afford all three is a moot point.
However, were I still running the WATCHKEEPER land aspirations*** I’d think it beneficial to start by putting a mini-hard point on a medium WATCHKEEPER’s wings with some form of guided mortar bomb for targets of opportunity. It would not have taken more than a week or so of conjuring up some new SOPs to ensure that the bomb was only released on appropriate authority, but if the sodding aircraft is being tasked by the Division to look at important things, grown ups are not too far away to make those sorts of decisions. Simple little feed of data showing the grid coordinates of the cross hairs feeding into the bombs little brain to give it the target info, couple of release solenoids, should not be too complex and could be very useful indeed.
*** Must never say Requirements, because good old Colonel Tony would grip me by the throat in his Commando trained fingers and start squeezing – contractable Requirements was his official job – he responded (or did not) to my inputs on the Army’s perspective and looked at his budget, and then mostly said “no”.
Oopps, it is the same one TD was writing about
… looked so much bigger in the vid
Wonder how badly was endurance affected by lugging that bomb around?
Hi Chris,
I like LMM but agree cost could be a barrier. Regarding guided CRV7, the US Hydra 70mm has a guided version made by…BAE!
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-04-27/us-marines-field-apkws-guided-rocket-afghanistan
“BAE Systems Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) to Afghanistan. The APKWS is a conversion of the Hydra 70-mm unguided rocket into a precision-guided munition through the addition of the WGU-59/B mid-body guidance unit developed by BAE.”
I am sure I saw a video of the on TD before? Maybe a case of both and not either or?
G
Now that the munitions are light enough, the next step is switch the sound off while on the approach:
http://www.iarpa.gov/GHO_Presentations/PM_1_GHO_Proposers_Day_Presentations.pdf
- 30 mins airtime, without being audible (before having to switch back from battery-powered flight)
Chris, there is a CRV7 guided version called CRV7-PG
http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/missile%20systems/precisionguidedrocket/
http://www.magellan.aero/our-products/rockets-and-space/