Saw some demos of the new HOWITZER. They can put 5 rounds on target at the same time. If this is less expensive then a cruse missile why don't we utilize it more? Is it lack of friendly territory or range? Not as high tech as a missile but it gets the job done at a fraction of the cost. Same thing with battleships vs. missile frigates.
Why aren't we using artillery more?
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Joined
·
25,481 Posts
Saw that gun detailed a while ago - clever stuff. Mobile unit IIRC.
Rapid rate of fire for its size and each round is changed for trajectory and range so a whole bundle coincide and hit a small target area together.
Unsure as yet whether ''officially'' in service tho.
Rapid rate of fire for its size and each round is changed for trajectory and range so a whole bundle coincide and hit a small target area together.
Unsure as yet whether ''officially'' in service tho.
Joined
·
241 Posts
- Limited Range
- Requires use of a Forward Observer
- Collateral damage
- Did I mention limited range?
They're only good for about 30km - which, while it sounds like a lot, only translates to about 18 miles. They have to be moved by either CH-53 SuperStallion or by the new 7-ton truck, which takes time.
A Forward Observer (FO) is required in order walk the rounds on target. The first round is hardly ever going to be dead on and since the arty guys are miles away you need someone within line-of-sight to relay the adjustments.
Like I said, the first round or two aren't usually going to be dead-on..so you've got collateral damage to worry about.
Artillery IS being used, it just has very limited application at this point. I can't speak as to whether the "new" gun is being "officially" used or not....that's out of my sphere of knowledge.
Joined
·
3,826 Posts
Easier and quicker to call in an F-16 with a laser guided 500 pounder...just ask the Zark-man :image035:
Joined
·
529 Posts
Pocket is spot-on...Team American said:
Also...
Artillery is quick, given the BGs are in range...
Quicker to call in a fire mission than have an F-16 on a CAP far away having to haul a-- to your location (the planes for Zarq were diverted from a CAP somewhere else).
Part of any Operations Order is also "Service and Support"...If planned well, you usually know what assets (Arty, Air, MEDEVAC, etc) are available to you before a mission.
.
Point taken. I guess we aren't really in a conventional war. Even though we are holding ground, its asymmetrical nowadays. And even if we were the press isn't as embedded as much recently. It just seemed that an advanced artillery shell is still more cost effective then a cruse missile
Joined
·
25,623 Posts
I'm not sure I'd bet on that either. The arty shells have a lot less room for electronics and sensors. They also under go a lot higher G and centrifugal loads during firing. My guess is they don't work nearly as well as a guided bomb or cruse missile.Bryan said:
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
Don't remember all the info, but the Navy was getting a good start with a new generation of sabot rounds for the 16" Iowa class, in the '80s. 50km+, and early version of the "guided round", IIRC. Missiles are great, and arty does have inherent limitations, but nothing generates the terror of big guns. A little terror goes a loooong way...... We aren't barbarians, though.rstickle said:
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
The cost of the shell, itself, my not come anywhere near the cost of a cruise missle, but the cost of getting the artillery in place, and keeping it there, with all the attendant personnel, equipment and logistical support, might. A cruise missle or smart bomb, launched from a platform that is already deployed and on station, is a much more efficient use of resources in many circumstances.
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
Being a retired sailor I can not speak to the 105's effectiveness nor its cost per round on target but I do know that the Navy does not have active duty Battleships. The technology is just too old. We have newer and better ways to deliver the firepower where and when needed. Not necessarily economically programmed.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
