Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[GnyHwy]

I'd have to look but I am sure it was about 200m long (depending on range from mortar to tgt) and elevation. Width....I am not sure on. TViking might know

I can check my firing tables at work tomorrow.  I just know when we calculate error for guns we calculate error for range and deflection.  Range error is usually, on average about 8x the error in deflection (error in deflection is almost neglible unless you shoot really far).  For mortars we just calculate CEP which I believe all the firing table provide but, I will double check.

Just to revisit this cause I said I would, then back on topic.

I checked the firing tables for the 81mm.  It does provide probable errors (PE) for both range (PER) and deflection (PED).  At the high elevations (1000-1500) the PED is the same or even greater than the PER which would cause a circular error on the ground.  It is not until the elevation gets below approx 1000mils before the PER starts to outweigh the PED.  The most the PER ever outweighs the PED is about 4:1 vice the average of 8:1 for an arty gun in low angle.  An arty gun would also get more circular above 1000mils.

Back on topic.  The CASW would likely follow this pattern.  In low angle it would have a long and narrow beaten zone (like an MG) and in high angle  it would get more circular.  To attain the 2m in the pic seems like quite the pipe dream.  Atmosphere issues aside and even in single shot, I don't see how this would be possible.  Not with any consistency anyway.  If a trained soldier with a CASW could hit a 2m screen at 2km more than 1 in 5 shots, I would be amazed.

P.S.  I totally agree with Michael O'Leary and the 120mm vs 81mm comments.  We deal with the same issues with 155mm vs 105mm.  Quick suppression with a high volume of fire is the key.  The bigger calibre brings a whole different animal of logistical headaches.  The main reasons we have 777s in Afghan would be range to cover the entire AO, accuracy to prevent fratricide and the ability to fire excalibur.

From now on I will post any mortar or gun comments in the mortar thread.

 

[dapaterson]

If a trained soldier with a CASW could hit a 2m screen at 2km more than 1 in 5 shots, I would be amazed.

CASW (or C16) is not just a GMG; it's supposed to be a sophisticated Fire Control System as well that's programmable to deliver the desired effect at the desired location.  Not certain of all the technical details, and we all know that no manufacturer would overstate the capabilities they're delivering...

 

[Kalatzi]

Close counts with grenades >

 

[ArmyRick]

I think the point is, no matter how super duper an FCS system, hitting a target at 2 KM with medium velocity 40mm is VERY unlikely. Unless you plan to do alot of adjusting.

 

[R031button]

CASW (or C16) is not just a GMG; it's supposed to be a sophisticated Fire Control System as well that's programmable to deliver the desired effect at the desired location.  Not certain of all the technical details, and we all know that no manufacturer would overstate the capabilities they're delivering...

Because what this system needs is more weight.

 

[McG]

The CASW would likely follow this pattern.  In low angle it would have a long and narrow beaten zone (like an MG) and in high angle  it would get more circular.  To attain the 2m in the pic seems like quite the pipe dream.  Atmosphere issues aside and even in single shot, I don't see how this would be possible.

Low angle fire produces those long narrow error zones because of small variations in muzzle velocity - these small variances at the start influence through the whole flight of the projectile.  Given the high forward velocities relative to the slow fall to earth, the slightest of greater forward velocity can translate into greater travel prior to the projectile happening to hit the ground.  As you stated, this is true for rifles, MGs, tanks and artillery firing on a low angle.

However, the slide is emphasising precision engagements (hence the reason the 155 mm templates show for Excalibur and not the larger long error template of traditional rounds).  Likewise, the CASW template is not showing the conventional HEDP round - it is showing the air burst.  There are a variety of very mature technologies for ensuring straight trajectory projectiles detonate in a very precise range window and these have been incorporated into operational systems - traditionally these have been in air defense guns but more recently it has also turned-up in the XM-25 (which its users seem to like).

I am comfortable with the suggestion that this weapon can (with a certain ammunition type) have a greatly shorter beaten zone, but I do wonder if wind was accounted for in the template.  Given the size and speed of the projectile, I would expect a much wider error template.  I am in agreement with:

If a trained soldier with a CASW could hit a 2m screen at 2km more than 1 in 5 shots, I would be amazed.

I think the point is, no matter how super duper an FCS system, hitting a target at 2 KM with medium velocity 40mm is VERY unlikely. Unless you plan to do alot of adjusting.

I also wonder, if the error templates show the precision options for CASW and M777, why did the 60 mm template not reflect potential precision rounds for that weapon?

 

[Michael OLeary]

However, the slide is emphasising precision engagements (hence the reason the 155 mm templates show for Excalibur and not the larger long error template of traditional rounds).  Likewise, the CASW template is not showing the conventional HEDP round - it is showing the air burst.  There are a variety of very mature technologies for ensuring straight trajectory projectiles detonate in a very precise range window and these have been incorporated into operational systems - traditionally these have been in air defense guns but more recently it has also turned-up in the XM-25 (which its users seem to like).

OK, I'll ask.

If the slide is emphasizing the best cases with the most modern technologies for CASW and 155 mm, what data are they using for the 60mm mortar.  Is it?

a. the 1960s tube, handheld, with "average" ammo (i.e., what firing table did they pull the data from)?

or

b. a modern 60, baseplate mounted, with modern ammunition with tighter tolerances and a developed fire control system?

It's easy to situate an argument when you choose not to level the playing field.

I think that's been the core of the counter-argument regarding technology all along, if we can afford to bring along a completely different weapon system, we could have at least considered a modern update to the current system for a valid comparison.

When the argument is put forth that the 60 is more appropriate to light scales and dismounted movement, that doesn't mean its use in other roles can't involve modern weapon mounts (including vehicles) and fire control systems for increased stability and precision.  As far as I can see, these options have not been explored in detail to produce a completed piece of staff work.

:warstory: When I joined the Infantry School, as SME Mortars, I had the opportunity to sift through some of the remaining documentation on the aborted 120 mm mortar project conducted in the mid-1980s. It quickly became clear that the Statement of Requirement for that project was flawed from the beginning - the "essential" characteristics that were stated could be met by only one 120 mm mortar system then in production; the Thomson-Brandt 120 mm rifled mortar.  The "trials" that were conducted compared that mortar to a light Israeli 120 which wasn't anywhere near being in the same class of weapon (other than calibre) and an awkward 4-barreled system mounted on an M113. From what I saw, the estimate was situated so hard I don't know why they wasted their time even trying to convince people it was a useful trial.

 

[dapaterson]

From what I saw, the estimate was situated so hard I don't know why they wasted their time even trying to convince people it was a useful trial.

Obviously, you've never worked in DLR...

(I kid... a little)

 

[McG]

As far as I can see, these options have not been explored in detail to produce a completed piece of staff work.

I agree.  If that is not the case, there has been a horrible job communicating this even internally to audiences who should know.

Unfortunately, I think this debate suffers from a few (on either end of the spectrum of opinion) who insist on situating the estimate to their desired end.

The anti-60 mm camp has not shown that their analysis has considered considered newer mortars and newer munitions (including PGMs).  At the same time, elements in the anti-CASW camp continue present the weapon as flat trajectory and direct fire only (and thus just a big MG) regardless of how often it has been stated that the weapon will also do high-elevation and indirect fire.

The anti-CASW camp has presented a very strong argument that the weapons system itself is too heavy to be man-portable (and I believe they are correct) but the anit-60 mm camp has also presented a convincing argument that the 60 mm is not much better when ammunition weight in quantities for suppression is taken into account ... of course, that does not mean the 60 cannot still provide a meaningfull capability with less ammunition.

I really think if a little more emotion were removed from this debate, we would find there is a role for both weapons.  While one is currently slated as the offset for the other, I am not convinced that other more appropriate off-sets are not out there.

.... here's more propaganda from the project.  I wonder how these slides would have looked had the 60 mm been given a PGM option?  I suspect there would have been a little more baseline weight for the precision 60 mm fire control system (something has to program the round) but the adjustment shots & "no FCS" complaints against the mortar would have to go.  Maybe fewer rounds could achieve the effect too.

 

[Infanteer]

I really think if a little more emotion were removed from this debate, we would find there is a role for both weapons.  While one is currently slated as the offset for the other, I am not convinced that other more appropriate off-sets are not out there.

Yes.

I'd give up the 84mm Carl Gustav and the Eryx up as off-sets for a new 60mm mortar and a Javelin AT Missile.  The math probably doesn't work out, but there it is.  I'd gladly take a AGL - with or without FCS - too.

 

[Michael OLeary]

And there's nothing wrong with the idea of a mounted weapons detachment whose primary weapon is the AGL (for vehicle mount and static ground mount employment) that also carries a 60 mm for use in dismounted operations when vehicles and heavy kit are left behind (or for when it's the right weapon for the job).

 

[GnyHwy]

Likewise, the CASW template is not showing the conventional HEDP round - it is showing the air burst.  There are a variety of very mature technologies for ensuring straight trajectory projectiles detonate in a very precise range window and these have been incorporated into operational systems - traditionally these have been in air defense guns but more recently it has also turned-up in the XM-25 (which its users seem to like).

I am comfortable with the suggestion that this weapon can (with a certain ammunition type) have a greatly shorter beaten zone, but I do wonder if wind was accounted for in the template.  Given the size and speed of the projectile, I would expect a much wider error template.  I am in agreement with:

I am curious about this mature technology.  It would  have to be either an advanced type of propellant or more of the existing propellant.  The only way to reduce probable error (PE) is to pack more charge behind the projectile.  When we fire timed ammo in the Arty we try to fire it at the highest charge for the same reason of reducing PE.

The second comment about wind.  Wind, air temp, air density would not be accounted for.  These PEs are in relation to a standard atmosphere with no wind.

As for comments about the indirect role.  This is not difficult to do.  Just to clarify, the low angle/high angle has nothing to do with indirect fire.  Indirect fire is only when the weapon system can't see the target. i.e. the target may be 1400m away and a forward observer would be directing the fire.  The max range is 2400m which would be an elevation of 800mils.  700mils elevation (low angle ) will still give you 2000m+ in range.  I would not fire this wpn in high angle unless it was necessary (intervening crests) because your PE will get bigger.  Referring back to timed ammo, it would have to be fired in low angle or you would have rounds bursting all over the place.

 

[McG]

Just to clarify, the low angle/high angle has nothing to do with indirect fire.  Indirect fire is only when the weapon system can't see the target. i.e. the target may be 1400m away and a forward observer would be directing the fire. 

That is generally understood by the participants of this thread.

Referring back to timed ammo, it would have to be fired in low angle ...

Yes, everything that I have seen shows the airburst is intended to be fired in a flat trajectory.  This includes the project propaganda graphics:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28805/post-1028312.html#msg1028312

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It has been a (large) number of years since I did my IG Course, but unless the science of ballistics has changed recently, there is no way that I can see to achieve the small CEP the CASW project claims that they can. 

 

[vonGarvin]

It has been a (large) number of years since I did my IG Course, but unless the science of ballistics has changed recently, there is no way that I can see to achieve the small CEP the CASW project claims that they can.

Oh, didn't you hear about the change in the science of ballistics?  Terms such as "Internal ballistics" and "external ballistics", etc, have been replaced with "Regional Industrial Effect" and "Vested Interest".

 

[Old Sweat]

It has been a (large) number of years since I did my IG Course, but unless the science of ballistics has changed recently, there is no way that I can see to achieve the small CEP the CASW project claims that they can.

What he said goes double for me - especially the part about the (large) numbers of years since I did the IG course. It only could be possible with little round-to-round variation in MV, which would require very consistent propellant, and a very stable platform which eliminates as much as possible variations in bearing and elevation. This would be very difficult to achieve with an automatic weapon. The question is how great is the difference between the trajectories of the rounds, which affects the fall of shot at the sharp end.

 

[vonGarvin]

But.....this is all....HERESY!  I mean, the propaganda told us that it wouldn't require 28 rounds to adjust onto a target in the indirect role.  THEY TOLD US!




[/sarcasm]

 

[Michael OLeary]

It has been a (large) number of years since I did my IG Course, but unless the science of ballistics has changed recently, there is no way that I can see to achieve the small CEP the CASW project claims that they can.

Sounds like a job for the Mythbusters.

 

[McG]

It has been a (large) number of years since I did my IG Course, but unless the science of ballistics has changed recently, there is no way that I can see to achieve the small CEP the CASW project claims that they can.

As I stated, there are many technologies to achieve this.  On the more advanced end of the scale, MV is measured at the muzzle and the fuze programmed as the projectile leaves (this is late '80s tech) - the CASW does not have this capability.  It is also possible to develope ammunition that calculates its MV based on measuring its own peak angular velocity/rotating speed - but I doubt our programmable ammunition will do this.

At the lower end of the scale, it is possible (as many have identified) to tighten the tollarance of MV and simply go with a timed fuze.  The Bofors 3P programmable fuzes (more late '80s technology) boasted a range probable error of only 7 m front to back.  The Nammo Raufoss 40 mm programmable HE airburst grenade (AKA the Mk 285 40 mm High Velocity Grenade) uses a modern evolution of the Bofor's 3P fuze.  The projectile itself is not crimped into the casing but is secured through another means that sees tighter tollerance for shot start preassure (leading to less variance in MV).

The 1 m x 2 m CEP probably comes from the manufacture, so it will include some level of embelishment but I would not conclude that it is certainly far outside the realm of possible.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

MCG-

Fair enough on your comments.  Given an averagely abused or neglected grenade launcher, firing an average belt of ammo on an average day with an average crew, I would like to see what the CEP works out to.  I remain to be convinced that, in practice, it is anywhere near as accurate as claimed.

FWIW, I think that a grenade launcher is a useful addition to the toolbox, but not at the loss of the 60mm mortar.