FEI:
The 10- or 15-minute displacement time is far outside of Army standard and would be an embarassment even for new trainess at Fort Sill.
3 Likes
Has anyone developed a shell the ‘side slips’ while in flight such that a counter battery detection system will compute an incorrect point of origin?
Do all counter battery detection systems depend on an emitter? If so, why not develop a system that ‘spoofs’ real shell fire, forcing the enemy to turn on the detector which can then be located and destroyed. No detector, no counter battery fire?
One of our main detection systemds uses radar. Hard to spoof.
1 Like
If the counter battery radar is not turned on all the time it needs to be triggered by some other source:
-
someone or something hearing the guns/mortars being fired
-
someone or something visually observing the muzzle flashes
-
someone or something reporting impacts
-
ear or microphone in location A hears gun fired at location B when the sound has travelled at mach 1 (approx 340 meters/second, 3.4 kilometers takes 10 seconds, 7.2 kilometers takes 20 seconds) to reach the listening post. The shell travels (M777) at more than mach 2. The shell goes up, up, up and over while the sound travels straight so let’s assume that the speed across the map is effectively the same.
The listening post will thus “hear” the gunfire at more or less the same time as the shell passes overhead.
The point in the trajectory (going up, flying over, coming down) where this happens depends on the distances between gun, target and listening post. The maximum reaction time is achieved by being as close to the guns as possible. Could get tricky since the guns are kept “safe” way behind the front or contact line.
Assume the “listener” is half way between guns and counter battery guns (see point 3 below about flight times). The shell is now at the top of the trajectory (not quite true …) and the counter battery radar has 37 seconds to activate the radar, catch the shell once and then catch it again in a later point of the trajectory.
The radar can most likely manage this, at least it is activated and will have better chances to track the second shell. -
Observing the muzzle flashes is more or less the same as seeing the guns, radar is barely needed.
-
Duh … shell has landed, kinda late to activate the radar … Time to target at 20 kilometres is around 75 seconds so assume the same time for the return fire. This gives us a minimum time of 150 seconds (2.5 minutes) AND then we add the time for the gun crews doing counter battery fire to aim their guns (assuming the guns are waiting, loaded and ready). Loading an empty gun will add more delays.
The shortest reaction times require a direct chain of commands from the counter battery radar to the guns that would be used to fire back. Some armies do not play the game this way, they require a decision from some officer higher up in the command chain to give the command to fire. This may add minutes to the reaction time.
Sound is the only spoofing option, unless the enemy have active radars but then we get into anti-radar missiles and electronic countermeasures.
I would say that attempting to spoof a counter battery radar is just as easy by firing one or two real shells at a real target, move out a.s.a.p. and let the electronics contermeasure systems work on finding the counter battery radar.
Another option is to use cheap drones to scout for radar systems and then calling down artillery or missiles on them.
The danger factor in counter battery fire depends on the ability of the opposing artillery to hit a target. Adjusting fire requires a spotter or assistance from a counter battery radar able to issue fire correction commands (see above about delays in the command chain).
Another way to avoid the consequences of counter battery fire is to move out within 2 - 3 minutes …
1 Like
Against a technologically advanced opponent, it seems very desirable to get him to turn on his RADAR so that I can find and destroy it. Even one pulse of a RADAR is enough for two networked detection systems to triangulate and rapidly compute the location of the system. If linked to a gun or missile, a networked spot and destroy system should be able to locate a RADAR in seconds and immediately launch a weapon to destroy it. Is that not so?
Would it be possible to build a small, man portable rocket that mimics the ballistic trajectory, noise, and RADAR profile of a real shell?
Shooting and scooting is a very good way to trick an enemy into turning on his RADAR but this discussion is about towed artillery so scooting takes more time. If I can clear an area of detectors by tricking the operators into turning them on and destroying them, towed artillery becomes much less vulnerable to counter attack.
Killing drones should be relatively easy. Build a detector that recognizes movement against background clutter, takes a picture, and compares the picture to known drones. If it finds a match, shoot a bullet at the thing. Such a system could be completely automated. I think systems like TROPHY use RADAR but the idea is similar. Pattern recognition software is getting extremely good.
I think the ‘Towed Artillery is Dead’ people are anticipating spot and destroy systems that immediately detect and counter fire against any form of artillery. Some such systems already exist and they are anticipating future developments that make such systems even better. However, even if really good spot and destroy systems exist, there will be ways to spoof them. That is what I am on about.
1 Like
The 10- or 15-minute displacement time is far outside of Army standard and would be an embarassment even for new trainess at Fort Sill.
General Eric Smith (Commandant of the USMC) said during a naval expo that the standard displacement time of seven minutes for the M777 was too long due to loitering munitions that might be overhead. (The article says 2-3 minutes for M777, but Gen. Smith said seven minutes).
General Smith was one of the generals who believed that towed howitzers are now somewhat obsolete, but he never offered any suggestions as to what to replace them with.
1 Like
I think the opponent needs to have some sort of radar active at all times.
Maybe it would be possible to use drones for surveillance. If drones are used for surveillance then maybe they could be used for strikes as well. There are lots of Ukrainian video clips showing drones attacking armour, sometimes the strike drone is filmed from the scout/surveillance drone.
They detect and strike artillery/rocket systems before the artillery/rocket system opens fire the first time.
Maybe the question isn’t whether towed artillery needs to be replaced by self propelled systems but whether tube/rocket artillery, regardless of propulsion method, will eventually be replaced.
In many of the Ukrainian videos the drones are used for moving targets and artillery is used when the targets have stopped.
I bet there are lots of military strategy brains thinking about how the advances in small flying systems (“drones”) will affect how we make war in the future. The flying machine revolutionised warfare in the 20th century. The machine gun took some time to have a significant impact on warfare but eventuelly there were a lot of changes. The tanks changed warfare. Various missile systems, from bazooka and upwards, have changed things. I think drones and AI will also change warfare, maybe drastically. Drones hunting ground targets, interceptor drones hunting other drones in the air, AI shortening the decision cycles to improve response times.
We live in interesting times …
Edit: Video describing how three Russian assaults result in failures thanks to drones. Only still images but the photos show that it is hard to hide from small and silent eys in the sky.
Towed or self-propelled, moving at night or in daylight doesn’t matter with this type of opposition.
Lots of things will need to change …
1 Like
That was a really interesting video.
We are thinking along the same line. If drones and other systems can monitor the whole battlefield, backed up by networked artillery and missiles, anything that moves or fires will be knocked out very quickly. To avoid heavy casualties, the first phase of an attack must destroy or spoof those monitors.
Drone on drone stuff run by computers at extremely high speed is definitely the future. Science fiction stories of the 1960s are slowly becoming reality.
I suppose monitor superiority is now a thing like air superiority–you need to have it if you want to avoid taking excessive casualties.
1 Like
Another video, uploaded to YouTube 3 hours ago:
“Counter battery drones” striking two self propelled guns, the first one was totally destroyed,
the second one was abandoned by scared crew (video title is misleading),
either recovered or maybe targeted again later.
1 Like
The Ukraine War is not a really good example of the modern and sophisticated weapons systems a first-rate military has. For instance, Ukraine has no attack helicopters with radar on their mast rotors (Apache Longbow) and no warplanes with sophisticated AESA radars nor any command and control planes to detect aerial objects. Ukraine just has what the West donated, and yes, Ukraine has some battlefield and counter-battery fire radars, but as Defense reporters stated, the West gave Ukraine’s military mostly what was in their junk drawers.
As such, battlefield radars are more prevalent than one might think.
The issue is if loitering munitions will decimate towed artillery and that is a good question. Against peer nations…maybe…but if you have seen the videos of the Ukraine War, drones and loitering munitions attack IFVs and the troops riding on the IFVs jump off alive and survive because they can sense, see, and/or hear the drone approaching. Furthermore, the warhead of the loitering munitionor drone was so small that it cannot destroy the IFV in a massive fireball. The loitering munition or drone needs a strategic hit at the engine or ammo compartment.
Towed artillery are robust weapons so one has to wonder if a drone or loitering munitions with small warheads can destroy or disable them. An attack on the towed howitzer’s ammo supply might work, but would militaries show damage and destruction to their own units? That would be “Secret” footage to the command as it is bad public relations to show losses.
2 Likes
Indeed, but the footage from “my” drones blowing the enemy to pieces is definitely going to the internet.
M777 is not from the junk drawer
The Swedish Archer belongs to the “latest and greatest” together with many of the other artillery systems.
Leo 2, Challenger 2, Abrams, CV-90 and some other vehicles are not exactly junk either.
Ukraine DID indeed get som old hand-me down USSR stuff BUT that was essentially the same equipment as Russia was using.
1 Like
A small, well placed WP device can do wonders.
2 Likes