Looks like the S. Koreans did to the 105mm Howitzer what the Marine Corps had envisioned for the 120mm Mortar.
Its really quite interesting. The 105 can have much extended range, is as lightweight and is capable of being moved by air almost as easily as the 120mm mortar. Additionally it has a high angle of attack and can act as a surrogate to the mortar in most of its profiles. Last but not least its widely used. Dragon Fire would have been a winner. The current system? Not yet sold. But back to the 105. I wonder if this is a viable option? The EVO is interesting but I'd like to see it in action.
Why isn't the USMC and US Army looking into getting this. This would make a perfect mobile mortar system
ReplyDeletei think it comes back to the debate between which is better for expeditionary forces. 120 vs 105. i have no idea and i guess it comes to where you plan on fighting. if you're in the mountains of afghanistan then yeah. 120 wins. if you're out in the flat deserts or plains then 105. if you're a sea going force i can see the argument for 120 because if you've seen most coasts then you're at least having to face a big ass hill once you get past the beach.
Deletei just don't know to answer your question though.
If you are talking about the higher angle of fire provided by a mortar vs. a howitzer the howitzer can be built to have a 1600 mil max elevation with some more work..
DeleteThere are 105 shells out there with preformed fragmentation that increase the lethality to the equivalent 120 mortar.
I think the real revolution in artillery in the last 10 years is not precision rounds but rather Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact capability. The ability to have 2 howitzers fire a 3 round MRSI mission and lay down the same level of firepower as a full battery; that is a revolution in expeditionary fire support. 1/3 the mass for the same firepower, what is not to love?
The Corps adopted the 120mm for one reason and that is because it can be shoved inside the back of a MV-22B.
i can't refute a thing you said. i do have this question though. how much input did the artillery 'branch' have in the selection? was this all a push down from Lab or did they get input from the guys in the field.
DeleteI honestly have no idea. I know the dream was to have a completely air transportable BLT and M777A2 was just not cutting it. The EFSS was what closed that capability gap. I know the development was nothing close to quick. I believe development started around 2000 and i saw the first ones in 2008. Units were still receiving them 2012 for the first time.
DeleteThe Korean Army has a tradition of not relying on the Air Force CAS to do its job, because the ROKAF was a third rate air force for a long long time. In Vietnam, while the US ground troops could call on USAF air support when in trouble, the ROK troops were on their own when in trouble. Accordingly, the ROK Army tries to handle close support, low level air defense, and even the strategic bombing by itself(similar to China's second artillery corp), even though the ROKAF insists it can now handle those jobs.
ReplyDeleteRarely you will see mobile SAM launchers, anti-aircraft guns, and lots of multiple guided rocket launchers moving with an army brigade, but you will see that in Korea due to the army's lack of trust on the air force.
This gun truck looks exceptionally soft, just like the French CAESAR. Counter-battery fire will shred this thing. Also, it is still a CGI concept, and our M119s are in service now and are easily tow-able.
ReplyDeleteAs for the mortar vs. this thing, a mortar shell flies in a nice arc and carries more explosives.
The answer is "rate of fire." A 105mm Howitzer has a slower rate of fire than a 120mm Mortar. You get a little more in terms of projectile effect, but you need more Howitzers to provide the same amount of rounds on target. In terms of "range gained" between American 105's over 120's, you get 5.3 kilometers (11.5 k over 7.2k) advantage, but the 120mm Mortars have a 16 rpm max effective fire over the 105's 10rpm. On sustained fire the mortars are 4 rpm, the howitzers are 3 rpm. Mortars fall under the direct control of the Infantry commander at the Company or BN level (Stryker companies have their own 120s) while the 105's are under the Brigade Commander's control.
ReplyDeleteThe 105's are "better than nothing" when it comes to fire support for dismounted infantry. However towed artillery lacks the mobility of the M1064 (M113 chassis) or M1129 (Stryker chassis) which let the mortars keep up with the infantry as they advance. The M109 Paladins do the same keeping up with the Bradleys and Abrams, and if Stryker Infantry gets bogged down where the 120's can't support, that is where the BDE level M777's come into play.
What I would like to see developed for the Army is a Bradly chassis pure brigade, with a 155 cannon and a 105mm Tank turret in addition to a 120mm mortar carrying variant to replace the Paladins, Abrams and M113 mortar carriers to create a true "single chassis Brigade" which will really help the logisticians out when it comes to support (one tread, one powerplant, etc). This would give the Army a "tiered" response from Airborne Light Infantry (82nd, 4/25, 173rd), Air Assault Light Infantry (101st), Light Infantry (10th Mtn), Stryker (2nd ID), my proposed Bradley brigade, and Armored Brigades (1st ID, 1st Cav, 1st Armor, 3rd ID).