Artillery technology hasn’t been sitting still. We have computerized artillery like we’ve computerized everything else. We’ve got artillery capable of firing 6-7 rounds in such a way that they all impact the target at the same time. If I’ve got three of these things is this laser system going to be able to stop 18-21 shells at once?
Marc
The need for artillary is as strong as ever but the Crusader was canceled because of technological advances in guns. Specifically, rail guns.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-nlos.htm
I was unaware of the counter artillery laser. For the near term future, I can’t picture it being more than a neat trick, though. It’s a bit like star wars/SDI/BMCDO - it’s one thing to be able to stop a limited attack involving a few warheads coming at once, but it’s entirely another to be able to stop a mass, sustained bombardment.
Surgical artillery has been around for a while:
I agree with your post (all three times! ;)).
Just to note, as a matter of board etiquette, that it’s considered not necessary to post an apology, but simply click on the link on one of the posts that says “Report this Post to a Moderator” and request deletion of the duplicates. This saves them time and trouble in cleanup and brings it to their attention faster. (Not criticism, just repeating what’s been said in the past about this sort of occurrence.)
The average army commander - on any level - is always more happy when his fire support is under his direct control, preferably subordinated to him. The average infantry company commander may only have a couple of pathetic medium mortars in his unit, but they’re his, they’re manned by his men, every detail of their performance is under his control. The same principle applies to to batallion, brigade, corps…
Air support, OTOH, comes from an entirely different organization that operates under different rules, with different mission parameters - no amount of cross-training will remove the feeling that things can go wrong in subtle, unforeseeable ways once you outsource any part of the mission.
Soldiers know that having something that’ll just do where and when it’s needed always beats having the perfect solution arrive slightly late. Which is one of the reasons any army will stick to its guns.
I don’t think the US Navy uses battleships any more.
Correct. But they should.
“Artillery” changes in what it is and what it does. Originally it was catapults and ballistas. Then it was cannon. Now it’s SPHowitzers and MLRS. Once it hurled rocks, balls of flaming pitch, and dead bodies; then it was cannonballs, grapeshot and sharpnel shell; now it’s cluster bomblets and NBCs. Heck, in the philosophical sense of land war, Close Air Support is a form of artillery.
So I can see how we may for a long time retain surface–based weapons systems attached to and moving along with the land units and responsive to their field commanders, that propel relatively inexpensive, minimal-inflight-guidance ordnance in large amounts on short notice from the rear lines over the heads of the front troops at the enemy with not-necessarily-to-the-last-inch accuracy, for breaching defenses or inflicting mass casualties. Whether what is used is still recognizably a gun, and whether it becomes a “special cases” rather than a general-purpose combart arm, that’s another story. But for the next few decades it is still relevant – not every battle will be urban, not every strike surgical. And ocassionally it’ll be cloudy or rainy and the air cover will not be too good.
As has been mentioned overwhelming an artillery defense system is quite possible. You don’t even need to speculate on it. Today North Korea has something like 10,000 artillery pieces ranged on Seoul, South Korea. They estimate that artillery can rain 500,000 shells per hour on Seoul! That’s nearly 140 shells per second! I find it hard to envision a defense system that could come close to putting a dent in that kind of attack.
Of course on a mobile battlefield you won’t have that kind of massed artillery but in the end the artillery is cheaper than the defense system. In general you are probably better off using your own artillery in a counter-battery fire mode to take out the enemy artillery. Considering the US better and more accurate artillery than most other countries with the ability to pinpoint enemy artillery after it fires (using radar) I doubt enemy artillery would survive very long in any case with no need for expensive and delicate laser systems.
I saw the TV show in question too and they seemed to suggest that for close support of troops artillery is still the best method. Planes might (with certain weapons) be accurate but they don’t always have that precision available to them, they are not timely compared to artillery and they cannot bring the mass attack that artillery can provide. Aircraft might manage this if you have a few dozen planes loitering very nearby but once they unload they have to leave to rearm…artillery can hang in a long, protracted battle.
Artillery definitely has its place. I recall that in Deserrt Storm Iraqi troops spoke in great fear of the ‘steel rain’ the US poured on them (artillery including the MLRS which is missile artillery). This in no small measure helped convince the mass of troops to surrender as they did. The Iraqi soldiers did not speak in such awe of precision bombing.
As a former tanker, I second the previous post concerning troops wanting to have an immediate response somewhat under their control (at Company, Battalion, Brigade and Divisional levels), as opposed to a USAF FAC telling you, “Sorry, you don’t have priority for air support.” Or, “Sorry; the planes came under heavy AA fire and had to abort to alternate targets.”
If a practical battlefield laser defense system becomes available, then artillerists will develop decoy rounds of some sort, with detectors to pinpoint the location of the laser defense batteries. Then the cannon cockers load up a Silver Bullet and let fly.
Then the laser(ists?) develop doctrine and technology to counter the artillerists counter measures.
And thus the age-old “Stick .vs. Rock” race continues. If anyone thinks that one might eventually outdo the other, please remember that the crossbow was supposed to be the doom of mankind because of its lethality. Only once we entered the nuclear age (that’s a pretty nasty rock!) did the prospect of humanity’s annihlation become a reality.
The “Rock” is favored now because it allows its user to strike its target at a safe distance; be it artillery, air strikes or cruise missiles.
Who knows where the changes in technology will take us?
The system was orginally designed so that villages in Israel could shoot down katushas and mortar shells. On a modern battlefeild , artillery will be one of several suites brought to bear against an enemy. Any future battlefield lazer system will in the beginning ,most likely be at divisional level for airdefense against conventional aircraft , cruise missiles and theater ballastic missiles like the Scud and Frog.
There will not be that many of them on the battlefield at one time, while its possible that the size will be brought down to a size of a tank pack ,the radar used to track incoming artillery , the computer to assign fire plots to the invidual lazer crews and the logisitics of the laser batteries is probably going to have a big enough foot print ,that they will be sanitized , along with the more conventional sam batteries in the opening phases of a war.
And what happens when the cheering lazer crew finds out they just revealed themselves to a choice of aircraft/MLRS/Artillery because they were suckered into firing. The early lazers are going to have limitations , cooling , radar intergration , simple mechanical problems on vehicles , they are gonna make the battlefield more spicy , but not that spicy.
Actually thats two separate lazers
Theatre defense would be controlled by the theatre commander and his AD people , while a battlefield lazer would be organically linked to what ever corp, division , brigade they are attached to.
It won’t change the battlefeild , but it will add more spice in the first few days of a war.
Declan
The laser idea for repelling shells is pointless. If you were watching the beginning of the last war, the Iraqi’s found out what trajectory radar can do. They fired a ranging shot and were pummeled with return fire. The trajectory of the shell was traced back to the source using radar.
Shooting at incoming shells is a repetitive process. Destroying the opposing artillery is a much better/cheaper method of defense.
Now incoming missiles, THAT’S when a laser really shines (pun intended). The opposing force would not be in position to detect the laser.
I heard some reports towards the end of GW II that we were running out of cruise missiles. Just another reason to keep the guns around.
[semi-hijack]
A couple years ago there was a cover story in Popular Science about a new navy ship with a rail gun type weapon with a range of 400+ miles. Anyone remember that, or heard anything more about it? Obviously, a ship can carry the enormous power plant needed to run such a beast, but suppose you could build a semi-mobile land based version?
Its possible that the fleet was running out of cruise missiles in theater, but the production lines were/are going three shifts flat out. Same with the company that makes the jdam kits.
Declan
How would one detect a laser? By definition it is a coherent beam of light. Even if some light scattered off of the projectile (whatever type of projectile) I find it hard to think of a system that could not only pick that up but identify it for what it is and backtrack it to its source.
Not to undervalue the usefulness or effectiveness of counter battery radars, but the Iraqis managed to frequently get off more than ranging shots. The larger reason for the poor performance from Iraqi artillery in the 1991 Gulf War was the inability to find targets for their guns and pass the information along to them in a timely manner, which speaks to an underlying weakness of the Iraqi army in every war it’s ever fought in: extremely poor command and control. The pentagon claimed at press briefings in both wars that they were substantially crippling Saddam’s ability to communicate with his troops, but at least for Desert Storm this was proven to be untrue. What the pentagon saw as signs of a serious breakdown of command and control (and they would be, in most armies) was actually Iraqi command and control operating at a level that was par for the course.
The anti-artillery shell laser isn’t pointless; just take a look at who’s developing it. It’s a joint US-Israeli venture. It could be useful in the event of future cross border shelling by Hamas, where rounds would be coming sporadically in ones and twos. Counter battery fire isn’t particularly useful in this situation. What’s happening is individual rockets are fired or a few rounds are lobbed from a mortar after which the tube is broken down and the crew either disperses or displaces to fire another couple of rounds from a different location.
Polycarp - Thanks for the tip, no criticism taken.